Talk:Bosnian War/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Casualties

I think that this sentence

"Manipulation with numbers is today most often used by historical revisionist to change the character and the scope of the war in Bosnia and Herzegovina."

Should be deleted from the section "Casualties" as it is not sourced and could be misunderstood. For example the statement by Dr Haris Silajdzic, as head of the Bosnia and Herzegovina Delegation to the United Nations, is a manipulation of the numbers to make a political point (That the whole war can be seen as an autogenocide with the sociocide of the old integrated Bosnia and Herzegovina), but few would claim he is a historical revisionist (negationist). -- PBS (talk) 07:44, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Introduction too long?

The current introduction is:

The Bosnian War, also known as the War in Bosnia and Herzegovina, was an international armed conflict that took place between March 1992 and November 1995. The war involved several sides. According to numerous International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia judgements the conflict involved Bosnia and the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (later Serbia and Montenegro) [1] as well as Croatia.[2] According to an International Court of Justice judgment, Serbia gave military and financial support to Serb forces which consisted of the Yugoslav People's Army, the Army of Republika Srpska, the Serbian Ministry of the Interior, the Ministry of the Interior of Republika Srpska and Serb Territorial Defense Forces. Croatia gave military support to Croat forces of the self-proclaimed Croatian Community of Herzeg-Bosnia. Bosnian government forces were led by the Army of the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina.[3] These factions changed objectives and allegiances several times at various stages of the war.

Because the war in Bosnia and Herzegovina was a consequence of the instability in the wider region of the former Yugoslavia, and due to the involvement of neighboring countries Croatia and Serbia and Montenegro, there was long-standing debate as to whether the conflict was a civil war or a war of aggression. Most Bosniaks and many Croats, western politicians and human rights organizations claimed that the war was a war of Serbian and Croatian aggression based on the Karađorđevo agreement, while Serbs often considered it a civil war. A trial took place before the International Court of Justice, following a 1993 suit by Bosnia and Herzegovina against Serbia and Montenegro alleging genocide (see Bosnian genocide case at the International Court of Justice). The International Court of Justice (ICJ) ruling of 26 February 2007 indirectly determined the war's nature to be international, though clearing Serbia of direct responsibility for the genocide committed by the forces of Republika Srpska. The ICJ concluded, however, that Serbia failed to prevent genocide committed by Serb forces and failed to punish those who carried out the genocide, especially General Ratko Mladić, and bring them to justice.

Despite the evidence of many kinds of war crimes conducted simultaneously by different Serb forces including JNA (VJ) in different parts of Bosnia and Herzegovina, especially in Bijeljina, Sarajevo, Prijedor, Zvornik, Banja Luka, Višegrad and Foča, the judges ruled that the criteria for genocide with the specific intent (dolus specialis) to destroy Bosnian Muslims were met only in Srebrenica or Eastern Bosnia in 1995.[4] The court concluded that the crimes committed during the 1992-1995 war, may amount to crimes against humanity according to the international law, but that these acts did not, in themselves, constitute genocide per se.[5] The Court further decided that, following Montenegro's declaration of independence in May 2006, Serbia was the only respondent party in the case, but that "any responsibility for past events involved at the relevant time the composite State of Serbia and Montenegro".[6]

The involvement of NATO, during the 1995 Operation Deliberate Force against the positions of the Army of Republika Srpska internationalized the conflict, but only in its final stages.

The war was brought to an end after the signing of the General Framework Agreement for Peace in Bosnia and Herzegovina in Paris on 14 December 1995.[7] Peace negotiations were held in Dayton, Ohio, and were finalized on 21 December 1995. The accords are known as the Dayton Agreement.

The most recent research places the number of victims at around 100,000–110,000 killed (civilians and military), and 1.8 million displaced (see Casualties).[8][9][10] Recent research has shown that most of the 97,207[11] documented casualties (soldiers and civilians) during Bosnian War were Bosniaks (66%), with Serbs in second (25%) and Croats (8%) in third place.[12] However, 83 percent of civilian victims were Bosniaks, 10 percent were Serbs and more than 5 percent were Croats, followed by a small number of others such as Albanians or Romani people. Some 30 per cent [at least] of the Bosniak civilian victims were women and children[13]. The percentage of Bosniak civilian victims would be higher had survivors of Srebrenica not reported 1,800 of their loved-ones as soldiers to access social services and other government benefits. The total figure of dead could rise by a maximum of another 10,000 for the entire country due to ongoing research. [14][15][15][16][17]

According to a detailed 1995 report about the war made by the Central Intelligence Agency, 90% of the war crimes of the Bosnian War were committed by Serbs.[18] According to legal experts, as of early 2008, 45 Serbs, 12 Croats and 4 Bosniaks were convicted of war crimes by the ICTY in connection with the Balkan wars of the 1990s.[19] Both Serbs and Croats were indicted and convicted of systematic war crimes (joint criminal enterprise), while Bosniaks of individual ones. Some high ranking political leaders of Serbs (Momčilo Krajišnik and Biljana Plavšić) as well as Croats (Dario Kordić) were convicted of war crimes, while some others are presently on trials at the ICTY (Radovan Karadžić and Jadranko Prlić). Genocide is the most serious war crime the Serbs were convicted of, crimes against humanity, a charge second in gravity only to genocide (i.e. ethnic cleansing) for the Croats, and breaches of the Geneva Conventions for the Bosniaks (Mucic et al.).[20]

The bold part i think could be taken out of the introduction and be put in a section of it's own in the article itself. Perhaps the part about casualties should be considered aswell, since it has a section in the article and numbers in the infobox. --Nirvana77 (talk) 11:49, 5 July 2009 (UTC) I would agree that the current introduction could be shorten.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.245.225.193 (talk • contribs) 11:40, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

WIKI IDIOCRACY

Essay about "wiki idiocracy"

This article is true example of the fact that this is source of twisted true. First of all for one encyclopedia reliable source cannot be VOA (Voice of America) nor BBC because those do not conduct academic studies but information program sponsored by USA/UK government and are not known for an unbiased view(even though someone might consider BBC as most objective media). So reference [28] is completely irrelevant. And all article is more like Bosnian Muslim view of the war so it is really comical admin pledge for contributors not to make forum on the mater. Scientific proof of inconsistency of VOA and BBC can be found in many views on many issues e.g. weapons of mass destruction in Iraq in 2003. There is interesting note by Noam Chomsky in one interview to BBC reporter that he do believe BBC crew member that he believes in everything he writes but then this is the principal reason he had been employed in first place. It is also easy to check that Serbs overwhelmingly denied support to creation of Bosnian state. Those that participated in referendum where almost exclusively Bosnian Muslims and Croats. And they could not make 67% count necessary for the referendum to be valid because province constitution required more then 2/3 support. However it is also easy to check that Croats in vast majority on referendum in 1992, accepted Bosnian state as transient state before creation of their own one. It is also important to mention that supreme to the constitution of federal unit BiH was federal constitution of Yugoslavia which required consensus of all federal units for results of referendum on independence to take effect and 2 have strongly opposed it namely Montenegro and Serbia. Also the BiH (federal unit) parliament session where referendum is initiated was ended in boycott of Serbian representatives before voting on issue so it did not have sufficient count to make legal decision and definitely it was against proclaimed European values where it is not expected to vote over desire of one whole nation just on number count. Referendum was hailed only in NATO states. Weakness of Russia and China at time led for the rest of world to go with flow rather then to question anything. Similar desire of NATO in case of Kosovo was opposed thanks to rebuilt of Russian influence in World and boosted Chinese confidence as well as raising concerns of other big countries like India, Brazil, Argentina, Indonesia etc. for NATO self assigned role in redrawing the maps of the world (Indonesia-East Timur, Russia-Chechnya, China-Tibet, breaking of Yugoslavia etc). All this is also well documented. It is interesting that today NATO does not allow any new referendum in BiH where Croats and Serbs will have quite different view on BiH future organization. Like in every EU referendum, it is only valid if people will vote what they are expected to vote. If they want something different that there is no capacity for organization of that referendum. Just look few last EU referendums. They are repeated as many times as it required to achieve prior set agenda. This can easily be checked because there are number of denied initiatives on referendums from Serbian or Croatian side by NATO states OHR representatives in BiH. Since 1991 every Serbian referendum was claimed to be invalid even when there was obvious majority in support. Similar happens in any part of the world where agenda does not suits NATO views. Today referendums in Abhazia and South Ossetia are denied for questioned participation of Georgians while Kosovo referendums are accepted with similarly questioned participation of Serbs.

As other evidences that are so accessible you can just check simple football game between Croatia and BiH where hardly any Croat in BiH would support national team of BiH. It goes that far that vast majority of Serbs and Croats even support any other national team (except Turkish for known historical reasons) rather then BiH one. And do not forget that Serbs and Croats in BiH constitute actual majority which leads to conclusion that BiH is the only country, at least in Europe, that is not supported by even a simple majority of population. It is so easy to observe Serbs and Croats are forced by OHR and NATO to participate in BiH statehood. This is all easy to check. It is evident in every local media, not in CNN though. I am trying to guess why...

This article is so out of touch that makes wiki attempt to look as reliable source of information rather comic. Instead of informing reader is guided into belief that suits to someone or something.

And another example. It is the fact that Serbs and later Croats achieved their military objectives at the earliest stages of the war and then moved in defense position. Serbs held almost 70% of the land and according to peace talks they were willing to gave up on around 17% for recognition of their republic e.g in talks in 1993. There are significant evidences of it. Now if you look war statistics used in the same article Serbs with more then 7 times higher number of thanks and planes and good defense position could not inflict to the Bosnian Muslim forces higher casualties then ratio less then 1.3 : 1 . This is RIDICULOUS. There are few if any examples in history of war affairs with such an result. It clearly looks like someone wanted to present all Serbian victims as solders in order to artificially create huge discrepancy between civilian casualties between Serbs, Croats and Muslims, basically trying to support sold BBC and VOA(used as references in this Comic-pedia) propaganda from the beginning of the war that Serbs only in first few months of war killed 200000 Bosnian Muslims. Of course such an argument is not possible to confirm any more due to laws of mathematics because total war casualties are less then this so at least they tried twisting the numbers as much as possible to present Serbs as those who killed civilians. It is amazing that even Spartans, where almost all man where in military would have more civilian casualties then Serbs. According to those statistics almost every dead Serb was a military. This would not surprise an objective monitor if he would knew that major source of those statistics is collaboration study between Norwegian(NATO member) and Bosnian Muslim teams. Serbs and non NATO observes had no say in that matter. Ave COMIC-PEDIA

And about other sources all western based organizations Amnesty International UK, Human Rights Watch USA, Helsinki Watch same thing as above so USA, BBC UK, CNN USA and sucks!!! I recommend to watch John Stewart on Cross fire, New York Times USA there are many jokes on their objectivity. Google it!!! Sydney Morning Herald Australia, The Guardian UK, International Herald Tribune UK, Reuters UK. And then lets introduce some diversity :-) Agence France-Presse France

There is a WAST WORLD BEYOND WESTERN WHITE COLOR AND ENGLISH LANGUAGE. There is no one single Russian, Chinese, Ukrainian, Polish, South African, Brazilian or Argentinian source. You use Bosnian Muslim sources yet deny any Serbian source. It cannot be OBJECTIVE view if it is created from the views of media of NATO countries that do and did in BiH what is so obvious. They participated in conflict sided with one side. They even organized coalition between Muslims and Croats against the Serbs whom eventually they bombed. Do you call this neutral research ????

You mention those too, ICTY court decisions, ICTY Self-incrimination

This court is not truly UN court. He kind a works under UN umbrella under UN resolution but it is fully controlled by NATO states. There is International Tribunal in Hag and it is not that one. This one is not really so international, though it complies with your criteria of where to search for information source (WHITE, WEST and preferably ENGLISH-SPEAKING) Just look at definition :"International Tribunal for the Prosecution of Persons Responsible for Serious Violations of International Humanitarian Law Committed in the Territory of the Former Yugoslavia since 1991" Justice is supposed to be universal. It cannot be restrained to some people and some period of time.

Only these sources might be source of unbiased information, because even in UN if small cannot get support of big his truth is not heard.

United Nations Security Council resolutions United Nations General Assembly resolutions United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees Report of Secretary-General to the Security Council: United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights United Nations Commission on Human Rights Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe

But most of anything every truth must comply with LOGIC. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.245.225.193 (talk • contribs) --99.245.225.193 (talk) 11:50, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Just a suggestion but please look at ICTY to see how white and western all of the judges are. Polargeo (talk) 07:47, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

You do not need to hide my article. The fact that there are different races in a court does not change the fact that court is in full control of NATO countries (dominantly white and where Anglo-Saxon wield the power e.g more then 10000 US military personal in Germany 250 military bases and bunch of nukes, right?). You could answer on general thought rather then making just a fancy comment. Let me mention also this. The same court found itself not in charge in case of Serbia against NATO for war crimes committed by NATO forces. How come? Could you search e.g what Noam Chomsky have to say on this. He would have quite a lot of explanation. As I recall and China, India and Russia do have certain doubts about objectivity demonstrated so far. ICTY is definitly not the point I was making here anyhow.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.245.225.193 (talk • contribs)

Archive

I think this page has got to the size where it needs archiving. I am happy to do this manually but it may be better to set up an automatic archive. Any objections or comments? Polargeo (talk) 11:02, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

No objections from me. An automatic archive would probably be for the best. Cordless Larry (talk) 20:18, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

You might be right

Oh this is AMERICAN DEMOCRACY IN ACTION. What you do not like to hear you minimize it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.245.225.193 (talk) 11:47, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

But it is really indicative that it become that way after criticism of WIKIPEDIA. Would you consider that it would be really main article not really discussion page that needs really big cleaning. Also above you have already resolved disputes that can easily be minimized.

I am aware that my view will not last long. It will be not answered just deleted. It is the way history was written in many cases anyhow —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.245.225.193 (talk) 11:35, 28 December 2009 (UTC) --99.245.225.193 (talk) 11:48, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a democracy, American or otherwise, but an encyclopedia which works by consensus. If you make sensible suggestions about how the article can be improved, then they will be listened to. Cordless Larry (talk) 11:52, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

I did make a suggestion and argument it but you hided it so no one can see it and agree on it. However, encyclopedia should not be build on consensus base but on facts. It is scientific project. What I ask is not to hide statement. This is inquisitor method not scientific one --99.245.225.193 (talk) 11:57, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

You didn't make a suggestion. You wrote a commentary on the article, its sources and the ICTY. Please state the concrete changes you would like to see made to the article. Cordless Larry (talk) 12:01, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

But this is the point. No one stands a chance of doing it because if you go through all articles all sources are Western Based. I am criticizing this project in its root. I did cleary say what needs to be changed to: 1.) Victim numbers especially on Serbian civilian count. ICTY stats are looking way more logical then those of Bosnian source but Bosnian one are stated in preview. I doubt even that ICTY are fully un biased. Where are other sources. 2.) Percentile of those that participated in referendum is referenced to VOA article. I explained clearly why it is not relevant source and this number of 67% is heavily disputed. It requires some more reliable source than VOA 3.) I suggested addition of article that would present suppression of Serbian and Croatian views on BIH organization 4.) I asked that every western source be verified but some Russian, Serbian, Chinese, Indian or other source so that is verified. Otherwise is should have clause of uncertainty or disputed information if there is strong opposition on that view from other side

Everything is clearly stated in text that you obviously do not like

btw Casualties was way longer text yet there was no your intervention on that one --99.245.225.193 (talk) 12:13, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

The comment on casualties above is very short so I don't understand your point there. It wasn't me who originally hid your comments, but in any case the reason wasn't to do with their length but their content. If you have some non-Western sources that could be used in the article, please suggest them here. I'd be happy to add them to the article (although help with translation may be required). Cordless Larry (talk) 12:24, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

As far as Casualties there is one article very long way above just bellow one called Autumn. It is the one I am referring.

As far as other I will repeat with additional clarifications: 1.) Victim numbers especially on Serbian civilian count. ICTY stats are looking way more logical then those of Bosnian source but Bosnian one are stated in preview. I doubt even that ICTY are fully un biased. Where are other sources. If you look in right corner of article there is a short summary on casualties. It took statistics from "Research and Documentation Center". I suggest that one that were under ICTY be used as more sensible and put there. I clearly explained logic why those of RDC are not to be trusted. Please read the article.

2.) Percentile of those that participated in referendum is referenced to VOA article. I explained clearly why it is not relevant source and this number of 67% is heavily disputed. It requires some more reliable source than VOA. Also in Wikipedia on other places they claim thsi to be between 64-67% I do not have exact value. Point is that no one does and that is hardly probable it was ever above 66% what was necessary as one of conditions for referendum on BiH separation from Yugoslavia to be legal. Point is that one stated in VOA should have a reference. Just that it was stated in VOA does not make it a fact. And there are heavy disputes on that number since the day one of war especially if we consider that total Muslim-Croatian count in Bosnia was less then 65% and Serbs were very against it. So I do not have the right number but I am sure VOA does not have it too. It is know again that this number is heavily disputed and there are no neutral source that ever confirmed it It is reference [28] in article

3.) I suggested addition of article that would present suppression of Serbian and Croatian views on BIH organization This I cannot write for you but if you i am sure there are plenty of ways you can get this one. It is so actual right now in BiH and you can reference to Butmir Talks that are direct consequence of the situation

4.) I asked that every western source be verified but some Russian, Serbian, Chinese, Indian or other source so that is verified. Otherwise is should have clause of uncertainty or disputed information if there is strong opposition on that view from other side So everywhere where the only source is Western Media not accompanied with other source put some small letters in brackets as you usually do like disputed, or additional source needed

Finally this Polar guy added ESSAY in front of my comment clearly wanted to ridicule it and if you do not believe in it you can see that he was first to criticize my view on ICTY above so I have really strong belief that this was a motive. Again look article Casualties just bellow Autumn and you will see this is way longer an very old now so this could have been easily minimized

--99.245.225.193 (talk) 12:45, 28 December 2009 (UTC)--99.245.225.193 (talk) 12:45, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

I now see the section you are referring to but, as stated above, it's about content rather than the length of a comment. Anyway, that's an aside. I can see your point about the casualty figures in the infobox. What do other editors think? Do we try to include the ICTY figures there as well, or replace the RDC figures with a note saying that numerous sources exist? I'm less convinced about your other points. You keep stating that there are alternative, non-Western sources that contradict what is in the article, but you have so far failed to provide any evidence of this. Cordless Larry (talk) 12:55, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Also, please assume good faith when commenting on other editors' behaviour. Cordless Larry (talk) 12:56, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

I do not know how can I convince you. VOA said there was 67% but VOA did not say where they god those data from, so we can check it. But they did not. Again, there is no reliable source because this referendum was never verified by anyone neutral. Soon after the war broke. Total count of Muslims and Croats was less then 65% and Serbs where very against it. My point is that VOA also does not have the source but they got this information from BOSNIAN MUSLIMS who told them what suited Bosnian Muslim agenda. My point is that this referendum was done in very particular situation and Serbs are disputing those numbers.

According to even American gov source(and Americans had pro Bosnian Muslim Bias) http://www.state.gov/r/pa/ei/bgn/2868.htm there was Ethnic groups: Bosniak 48.3%, Serb 34.0%, Croat 15.4%, others 2.3%. So if all Croats and Bosniak(Bosnian-Muslims) voted together it was 63.7% votes. It looks pretty impossible there was 67% people on the poll since Serbs boycott it completely.

Even according to again American goverment http://csce.gov/index.cfm?FuseAction=UserGroups.Home&ContentRecord_id=250&ContentType=G&ContentRecordType=G&UserGroup_id=5&Subaction=ByDate Open the PDF file There was 63.4 % of people that exit to polls

According to BiH Consitution required number was 66.67% . This you will not find in US goverment report. But anyhow even there they claim it was less then 66.67 (or 67%)

So there are plenty of reasons to question the VOA because what is their source.

Serbs claim 62% exit the polls You can see from ICTY what Serbsian defence in case of Milosevic had as data http://www.slobodan-milosevic.org/news/smorg021406.htm Written by: Andy Wilcoxson

So Serbian and American government sources are opposing what is stated by VOA

What else I can do to prove it

You see this is my point. It is those who write the article that should be held responsible for those things. They can easily be checked. But as my point was though you believe article was written in good spirit I just proved it was not. I explained it in my arguments. And this twisting of truth can really lead people to wrong conclusions

It is not responsibility of me to prove anything but of those who decided to publish something on encyclopedia to thoroughly verify their sources. Since most of this is written by those who really dislike Serbs what do you think, how realistic they would be? This is why I am criticizing WIKI approach. Just that someone does not have time to correct things does not ALLOW others to lie. Don't you agree. And the fact that something is stated by VOA is least reason to make it acutal truth. It should be confirmed first not accepted and then waited for someone to deny it. Well that is to point of my "ESSAY" --99.245.225.193 (talk) 13:32, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

I've started to look for alternative sources for the referendum turnout. Ben Fowkes has it as 64.4 per cent but Sumantra Bose states 63 per cent. I think we should note that various figures exist and list these sources. Cordless Larry (talk) 13:43, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Dear Larry lets see the big picture. What really meters in constitutional sense was then number was less then 66.66 % because then referendum is VOID. You can put 65,64,63 it all does not change a fact that secession of BiH from Yugoslavia was illegal act. This is why it was so important for VOA to put 67% LIE. For you it does not matter because in most of countries 66 or 67 is majority, but BiH and Yugoslavia was so delicately tied and this balance was making everyone feel happy, and once this tiny difference was abused it lead people to destruction and war. There is clear proof how WEST abused rule of law and added oil on fire recognizing independence of BiH that was completely illegal based on Bosnan at that time Federal Unit Constitution as as as Federation superior constitution of Yugoslavia. It would be as if 66% of German Swiss voters vote something that French and Italian Swiss are opposing. This is why this margin was set to protect every of three major contitutive nations in Bosnia. This way Serbs rights were severely violated. And Bonsian Muslims took advantage of it. Eventually the war started

The CSCE source that you mention above says that the threshold was 50 per cent, not 66.6 per cent. Where is your source for the two-thirds majority claim? Cordless Larry (talk) 13:57, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Terrible analogy, it would German Swiss and French Swiss against the Italian Swiss, or whatever combination. You scream biased yet show nothing but slobodan milosevic garbage. 85.92.235.206 (talk) 14:30, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Would you consider that maybe you did not pay attention on mathematics. German Swiss constitute 66% of Switzerland. So to achieve similar vote count they not need anyone to side with them. So it was the point. As far as your two nations agianst one point. That was really not my agenda, but you can see it that way too. It just affirms my statement. Do not you agree? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.245.225.193 (talk) 00:28, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Well how shell I find BiH constitution in English now. Just imagine country like Switzerland. Do you believe they can just change it if only Germans Swiss vote for it with 66% majority without French and Italian Swiss consent. Look at Miloshevic trial web link I provided to you. This is why this 62% of poll exit was so important because they were proving by this that poll was illegitimate http://www.slobodan-milosevic.org/news/smorg021406.htm Written by: Andy Wilcoxson It was that way in Yugoslavia. You needed 2/3 of votes. Anyhow every Bosnian Muslim on this page know it. I have already demonstrated how inaccurate this articles are. I am not on mission to write articles. I am electrical engineer and I have job to do. My point was how irresponsible is that people are abusing medium to spread not really facts but biased views under something that has status of encyclopedia.

How about finding it in Bosnian? Is that possible? Articles from http://www.slobodan-milosevic.org are unlikely to be considered reliable sources. Cordless Larry (talk) 14:18, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Arguing what level of percentage Yugoslavia required in a referendum is a waste of time. I am fairly sure a referendum for the independence of a part of Yugoslavia was itself illegal. What really matters is recognition by the international community. The section Bosnia and Herzegovina#The Bosnian War (1992–1995) has 63.7% from 'Malcolm, Noel (1994). Bosnia A Short History', it would be perfectly reasonable to quote this. Polargeo (talk) 17:34, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

You see this is exactly my point. Arguing may be irrelevant but stating something wrong is HUGE OFFENSE in science or collection of facts (encyclopedia work). What you or current life consider important is not necessarily correlated with what is scientifically important. Because if illegality of referendum is proven then it can raise researcher suspicions on motives on those who forced Bosnian independence and give a different light on the issue as well as reasons for Serbian consequent rebellion. And you or someone else who took upon to provide the facts should verify its validity so that someone who reasons after, based on reading of it is not lead to wrong conclusion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.245.225.193 (talk) 21:51, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Whilst you continue to provide only the slobodan milosovic website as a source and yet complain about the sources used here I can make no judgement on what you are saying. Polargeo (talk) 21:58, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

I only used statistics of referendum which as you can see are pretty much comparable with other sources (look what Larry says bellow) and this Miloshevic whom you imagine that wrote this article is actually British guy and his name was stated too. If you consider USA government, which I used as next two sources (out of three) as Miloshevic garbage then this is something I can hardly argue with you. I am out of speech, maybe you can try it with yourself. The fact that Misovic considered that Milk is liquid is not automatically false just because he thinks it even if I quoted him what I never did.. And relevance of your comment to what I stated before shows best your relevance as writer of articles on the same Wikipedia. It was so Cheap attempt to sell me Milosevic agenda. I had no source reference to him but to counts that are world wide recognized. As far as Noel Malcolm is considered as reference, I believe he could be poor choice only himself because he is know for radical views on Russians and Serbs. Look just titles of his articles and my following comment http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Bosnia_and_Herzegovina&action=edit&section=7—Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.245.225.193 (talk • contribs) 00:17, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

--99.245.225.193 (talk) 16:27, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

63.4 per cent seems to be the most cited figure according to a Google Scholar search. I'll use a source from there in the article. Cordless Larry (talk) 17:58, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

CONSIDER

I am not 100% sure on legality of referendum based on constitution, because there is not even consensus among the lawyers on it. Every piece of information I provided has no desire to correct the things because I am not an expert nor I claim to be one. Those are one who are writting the articles who incidentally or accidentally make such a claims.

The point is expressing concern over awareness of those who run the show called WIKI how popular the thing has become and consequently how important is to have consistency in writing and questioning the sources used. Look on Google John Stewart on Cross-Fire. Cross fire was only one show but it affected way of thinking of people. Many people took it for granted till John Daily destroyed it in its decayed root. There are many other people who are warning us on this. Many people in search of an answers look for WIKI and since it is on internet they believe in it. You would be amazed the even reporters are relaying on this because it is easier then to go to library and it is considered as encyclopedia, which it is not.

I also demonstrated the poor information gathering, what would be be very sad for someone on quest of critical journalism, not to mention the one who is writing encyclopedia articles.

Finally the Polargeo is referencing again to Noel Malcolm. I wrote article about this on http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Bosnia_and_Herzegovina&action=edit&section=7 and believe he run to hide that one too.

You can see how poor was done presentation on history of Bosnia. Basically Noel Malcolm is cited like God, like there are no other historians. I presented the criticism of his work. It is so obvious to any observer that his work is very much corner stone of Bosnian Muslim national ideology and NATO views on Balkans. I am more then 100% sure there are plenty of historians who are in heavy dispute with him. I have no issue that someone is trusting him more then me because he claims and has a status of an expert in the area. The problem is that he is not the only one and there are many who are in odds with his theories, almost all Serbian, Croatian, Bulgarian, Romanian, Greek, and many other European historians. I do not know for rest of the world

I hope you got my point and this is "ADMIN NEEDS TO REQUIRE MULTIPLE SOURCES FOR EVERY STATEMENT AND CONCLUSION THAT IS MADE ON PAGE. OTHERWISE READER SHOULD BE NOTIFIED ON EACH SUCH A STATEMENT AS NOT RELIABLE. AND SOURCING MUST BE GATHERED FROM DIFFERENT PARTS OF SPECTRUM."

Since Polargeo is a scientific person he would have to know that. Unlike natural science who is proved with experiment, science of social philosophy needs multiple questioning of different sides and standings to be verified and established. "AND THIS IS EXACTLY WHERE ALL ARTICLES ON BOSNIA ARE MISERABLE FAILING"

You can rather minimize our last debate and let my original article be visible because it has more truth and valid scientific approach then complete article on Bosnian war. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.245.225.193 (talk) 21:22, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree that the article needs more references, but it would be helpful if you could find and add them rather than writing long essays on the issue here. Cordless Larry (talk) 21:49, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Larry the fact that first I am do not really find my self qualified for the job and second I do not really have time for it does not make a change that article should stay as it is. You can just put mark above as you usually do in Wikipedia that is desputed or that additional sources are required for the information to be consider reliable. You can also make assertion that sources are dominantly from NATO countries and Bosnian Muslim government and that neutrality is disputed. Does this help--99.245.225.193 (talk) 22:06, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

I've added a template to the article requesting additional citations. I haven't added a disputed neutrality template since I don't agree with you on the neutrality issue. As an aside, I find it strange that you don't have time to help improve the article but you do have time to write excessively lengthy opinions here. Cordless Larry (talk) 22:15, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

However the long Essays, they are still shorter then articles and I do not need to dig for references because I know they exist but googl-ing them takes time. Does this make my case. Making article for me is serious business. The point is that it is easy to notice the exaggeration and lie, just merely using science of logic. Actual and precise facts are quite different problem. So NEUTRALITY of course can easily be disputed even you disagree with it, because majority of sources are from NATO countries and NATO was part of the conflict sided with Bosnian Muslims. If you Google it there are plenty of Russian, Serbian, Indian etc... and believe or not American, German, French documentaries and distinguish politicians an philosophers that object the view on NATO on the matter yet no one from that side is cited. There is no one single citation from PRAVDA, XIN-HUA, or any other non-Western based papers or agency. This is obvious alarm for suspision —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.245.225.193 (talk) 22:38, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Well, if you have no desire to help improve the article by suggesting references, then I have nothing more to say on the matter. Cordless Larry (talk) 23:14, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

For sure I do not. I am in war with its concept and believe that it is not far from FOX or CNN in terms of objectivity when it comes to social science of last 20 year and back. I was trying to point examples for that.

What I find astounding is that still of all articles only the one criticizing the WIKI is hidden. C'est la vie. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.245.225.193 (talk) 23:55, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

It's a comment, not an article, and it was hidden because, as it states at the top of this page, "This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Bosnian War article", whereas you have just stated that you have no interest in improving the article. Cordless Larry (talk) 23:59, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Sarajevo/Tuzla JNA column attacks

Why aren't Attack_on_the_JNA,_Tuzla and Attack_on_the_JNA,_Sarajevo mentioned? The May 2nd, 1992 attack in Sarajevo is probably the first bit open warfare in the city. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dusanv (talk • contribs) 07:49, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Casualty numbers in infobox

As pointed out in the comments above, the article's infobox features casualty statistics from the Research and Documentation Center, based in Sarajevo. There are also ICTY estimates that are mentioned in the text but not the infobox. I just wanted to formally garner views on whether we are happy as editors of the article to only include the RDC figures in the infobox, or whether this should be changed? Cordless Larry (talk) 18:30, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

I cannot see a problem with how it is at the moment. The RDC is the most recent source (Link is broken however). I cannot see the source of the ICTY figures because it is a 2005 journal article which needs a subscription and not the ICTY website. I also don't fully understand the ICTY figure table. Polargeo (talk) 21:48, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

I've downloaded the article and while it supports the total number of soldiers and civilians killed, it turns out that it doesn't support the ethnicity breakdown. Cordless Larry (talk) 22:44, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Maybe you do not see the reason because you minimized the Essay WIKI IDIOKRACY where reason is clearly stated. Those digits tend to present Serbs as the only side who killed civilians and in that article I explained why those digits are not to be trusted. Instead of minimizing could you try first to read it, please. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.245.225.193 (talk • contribs) 21:55, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

You did not explain using any sources so we just have your point of view that they are poor figures. That is not how we work here and one reason why I collapsed your rather long biased essay. Polargeo (talk) 22:06, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

I've re-read your comments above and while you state that "I clearly explained logic why those of RDC are not to be trusted", I can't actually find any comment by you to this effect. Could you please (succinctly) explain why the RDC figures are not reliable? Cordless Larry (talk) 22:07, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

You have other sources and those are ICTY. According to them Serbs had way more civilian casualties which is more reasonable. And the fact that something is published by Bosnian Muslim research canter should raise your concern of neutrality of such and information. It does not automatically becomes fact. As far as my comments in Essey I will quote the part of it again to you—Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.245.225.193 (talk) 22:17, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Nothing in that quote even mentions the RDC. Why is it "more reasonable" that there were more Serb casualties? And what makes the RDC Bosnian Muslim? Again, please provide sources to back up your arguments, otherwise they are just that - your arguments. Cordless Larry (talk) 22:23, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

It does. It mentions the statistics in upper-right hand side which are taken from RDC. In text I cleary expalain it

You have other sources and those are ICTY. According to them Serbs had way more civilian casualties which is more reasonable. And the fact that something is published by Bosnian Muslim research canter should raise your concern of neutrality of such and information. It does not automatically becomes fact. As far as my comments in Essey I will quote the part of it again to you

"...It is the fact that Serbs and later Croats achieved their military objectives at the earliest stages of the war and then moved in defense position. Serbs held almost 70% of the land and according to peace talks they were willing to gave up on around 17% for recognition of their republic e.g in talks in 1993. There are significant evidences of it. Now if you look war statistics used in the same article Serbs with more then 7 times higher number of thanks and planes and good defense position could not inflict to the Bosnian Muslim forces higher casualties then ratio less then 1.3 : 1 . This is RIDICULOUS. There are few if any examples in history of war affairs with such an result. It clearly looks like someone wanted to present all Serbian victims as solders in order to artificially create huge discrepancy between civilian casualties between Serbs, Croats and Muslims, basically trying to support sold BBC and VOA(used as references in this Comic-pedia) propaganda from the beginning of the war that Serbs only in first few months of war killed 200000 Bosnian Muslims. Of course such an argument is not possible to confirm any more due to laws of mathematics because total war casualties are less then this so at least they tried twisting the numbers as much as possible to present Serbs as those who killed civilians. It is amazing that even Spartans, where almost all man where in military would have more civilian casualties then Serbs. According to those statistics almost every dead Serb was a military. This would not surprise an objective monitor if he would knew that major source of those statistics is collaboration study between Norwegian(NATO member) and Bosnian Muslim teams. Serbs and non NATO observes had no say in that matter. Ave COMIC-PEDIA"

THE SUMMARY is that in RDC stats either Bosnian Muslim military Causalities should be higher and civilian lower or Serbian military should be lower and civilian higher as proportion wise appears to be that case with ICTY statistics.

I cannot prove anything to you about RCD expet the Serbs really do not participate much in it. Could you prove me opposit of what I state. It is impossible to find on interenet anything about who finance them, what NGO organizations work in it and what is their backround. I know for fact that Misad Tokaca one of leading people there is Bosnian Muslim. Could you tell me one Serb that has support in Serbian side that participate in that RDC team? You probably do not but you reserve yourself right to call it objective and deny me to dispute it

And LOGIC presented in my argument is more then a clear. With 7 times more thanks and plains, and good defense position, Serbs had similar military loses to Bosnian Muslims???? You do not find this as disputable

What gives you right to state something without any prof that does not give me right to deny it. You yourself have no idea nor you can find who is behind RDC except general terms like international organizanots —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.245.225.193 (talk) 22:56, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Well it turns out that the ICTY figures quoted in the article weren't supported by the source given, so now the RDC figures are the only up-to-date ones in any case. I'm disturbed by your argument that because one of the RDC staff is a Muslim, he is somehow biased. Neutrality on Wikipedia is based on the use of reliable sources, not ethnicity. Cordless Larry (talk) 23:08, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

If there is war between two sides and you collect information from source that is mostly lead by one of the sides that it is really questionable judgment. The fact what disturbs you is that you cannot prove anything on account of RDC reliability yet you are giving me hard time to prove you opposite. And there is huge difference between Muslim (who is religious person) and Muslim what is national determination at least under constitution of 1974. How ever it may bu funny to you, but there were people who were Muslim by nationality and atheists by their religious believe. So you could be Muslim and Cristian at the same time. I had no problem with any-one nationality, but I have problem if agency that is supposed to provide reliable source is influenced by Bosnian Muslim who might have an interest in matter with no balance from the other side when those two sides were part of conflict . Could you prove it opposite

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.245.225.193 (talk) 23:23, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

I fully understand the meaning of the term in the Bosnian context, thanks. I'd have used Bosniak, but I was borrowing your language. Cordless Larry (talk) 23:29, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

And again, you fail to provide an alternative source. If you have an alternative to the RDC source, please state it here otherwise I am not interested in continuing this discussion. Cordless Larry (talk) 23:31, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

I apologize because I was not sure. Many people for reasonable reasons are confused with this. Second I am not using term Bosniak because it may reflect territorial aspiration of Bosnian Muslims on whole country which also can be easily proven. They are the only force that insist on unified BiH. Yet I do believe that calling them just Muslims is also deminishing their desire for self determination. So I compromised with most logical Bosnian Muslim because they are indeed Slavs of Bosnia, Croatia, Serbia and Montenegro who converted to Islam even according Noel Malcolm The fact that I do not have alternative source does not make your source valid. This is one of the WORST CONCEPTS of WIKI And again I was not on enterprise to write the thighs but to criticize bad performance and biased agenda of WIKI project, intentional or accidental, YET BIASED. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.245.225.193 (talk • contribs) 23:43, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm not here to defend Wikipedia - I'm here to improve it rather than engage in endless debates about its value - but if you have a problem with the suitability of particular sources such as Malcolm and the RDC, there is a procedure that you can follow. I suggest you raise the issue at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. Cordless Larry (talk) 23:50, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

And, for what it's worth, I happen to think that the requirement that sources are provided is one of the best features of Wikipedia. Cordless Larry (talk) 23:52, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Larry. I appreciate your suggestion. I will see it. I just spent all day with computer and I have mountain of job to do. I appreciate your answer very much.

All the best to you, Marry Christmas and Happy New Year! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.245.225.193 (talk • contribs) 00:37, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

ICTY Source

Sorry I do not want to get into a long argument here. I saw that a source was missing. Perhaps this could help. http://www.nrk.no/nyheter/utenriks/4260912.html It's in Norwegian but you can easily use google translator to help, http://translate.google.com .

Also, Siljadjic, or whatever that guys name is, is a notorious liar. We really should remove that politician's nationalist rhetoric of 200,000 being killed. Those are very old figures. This guy has always cited such ridiculous numbers. (LAz17 (talk) 07:19, 4 January 2010 (UTC)).

There is a jstor link to something interesting here, www.jstor.org/stable/20164302 but my university's library somehow is not letting me access it. If I get ahold of this I'll post the page with the data. (LAz17 (talk) 07:46, 4 January 2010 (UTC)).

Yes 200,000 when mentioned should be shown to be an old estimate that is too high. The RDC estimate seems reasonable at over 97,000 (isn't that figure from actually counting the individuals). The ICTY researchers are clear that their number of 102,000 is likely to be an underestimate becasue of their methods. The 200,000 figure came from Cherif Bassouni, head of the UN expert commission in 1994 and is an estimate based on what information they had at the time on those missing, it is not "a lie". Polargeo (talk) 08:49, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

You are right we should definitely do something about the Siljadic quote, he appears to get his numbers from the red cross! (can we find these?). Polargeo (talk) 09:10, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

No need to even search for a direct source of the red cross. From the norweigan article....

"The total number killed in the war ranged from 25,000 to 329,000. A number often mentioned by the media for years was 200,000. This has been determined by a number of experts to be too high, as

Likely to be an understatement? Get your POV out of here, and out of wikipedia. Read the article, "Researchers Tabeau and Bijak takes clear disclaimer that the real figures may prove to be greater than they now have documented." May and likely are very different words. Stop manipulating.

(LAz17 (talk) 17:37, 4 January 2010 (UTC)).

You seem to have excluded their numbers on purpose. This section will require expansion. Not yet though. (LAz17 (talk) 17:42, 4 January 2010 (UTC)).

I have not excluded their numbers. I can only do so much at a time. Polargeo (talk) 17:49, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Okay, my appologies. (LAz17 (talk) 17:51, 4 January 2010 (UTC)).

The infobox claims certain numbers to be concrete. I think that this should be removed, as there are clearly many different numbers. (LAz17 (talk) 17:54, 4 January 2010 (UTC)). Perhaps this could be an entire separate sectin too. as it is quite big. (LAz17 (talk) 17:58, 4 January 2010 (UTC)).

In light of the Norwegian source, I had another look at the original article and some of the numbers that I removed were in there after all, in a footnote. However, they are not the numbers of each ethnic group killed, but estimates of the number of people killed by area. They estimate that 16,700 civilians were killed in the RS, but I can't find the 38,500 figure given in the Norwegian source in the article. Cordless Larry (talk) 11:46, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

The infobox numbers are the figures from RDC. RDC has by far the most extensive and detailed account of the casualties of the Bosnian war to date while the ICTY numbers remain sketchy at best. Therefore I see no problem at all with using RDC's figures in the infobox. I also see no reason to further prolong the casualties section. I instead suggest that you reinstate the ICTY figures in the casualties section and point out that it is broken down as people killed by area, if that now is the case. --Nirvana77 (talk) 12:06, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

The problem is that not all of the figures are supported by the original source (I will read it in more detail later to double-check). Cordless Larry (talk) 12:29, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

RDC is a bosniak based group. The Bosniaks have been biased since the start of the war. Heck, even the SDA lashed out when one guy said that 130,000 were killed in the war, accusing him of being a traitor. With so many estimates I think it's fair to say that we can not pinpoint the number to say this or that. Instead we should give perhaps a range or something, or remove it altogether. (LAz17 (talk) 17:33, 8 January 2010 (UTC)).

Jesus Christ your counter arguments are ridiculous Laz. The RDC was funded mainly by the Norwegian government but also the Swedish Helsinki Committee, the US government and the UN Development Program. [1] [2] [3] ◅ P  R  O  D  U  C  E  R _(TALK) 18:20, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Did you know

Did you know that between 1984 and 1986 the documentary film was recorded by television of republik Bosnia and Herzegovina on serbo-croatien language (TV Sarajevo) there the Slavik and Germanik people were called barbarians. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.170.230.91 (talk) 00:58, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Yugoslav peoples army

In May 1992, the United Nations Security Council confirmed independence of the new republics and accepted them into the UN. In accordance, the Yugoslav Army was asked to withdraw from Bosnia (as it was now deemed a hostile armed intervention in another sovereign state) or face sanctions. On May 12, 1992, JNA units were split between the Army of Yugoslavia (FRY) and the Army of Republika Srpska (mostly in accordance with geographical location or place of origin), along with the majority of officer staff. In reality, this meant that many units changed nothing except their titles and insignia.[4]

This is article on english wikipedia about Yugoslav Peoples Army. It is obvious that YPA left Bosnia and Herzegovina at the very begining of the Bosnian war. Therefore it is wrong to state that YPA was participating in the war, like it was written at the begining of the article about it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Antidiskriminator (talk • contribs) 20:25, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

It is fairly clear that the JNA had some involvement in the war. Even the text you show above suggests this. Polargeo (talk) 20:33, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes. YPA had some involvement in the war. Hundreds of soldiers were killed by Bosnian militias and paramilitary forces during peacefull and already agreed retreat from Sarajevo and Tuzla.[5] [6] Being a victim does not mean that you actively participate in war. Stating that YPA participated in war is mistake. Does anybody have any proof that YPA was involved in fights, besides above described role of being a victim? If not, I propose deleting this statement. Antidiskriminator (talk) 14:46, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

How about this quote When the JNA officially withdrew from Bosnia on May 19th 1992 (some 6 weeks after the outbreak of the war), most of the army stayed behind - along with their heavy weapons, ammunition, and supplies - and simply became part of the Bosnian Serb army The Clandestine Political Economy of War and Peace in Bosnia, International Studies Quarterly, 2004, 48, 29-51. So whether it is being killed, killing, logistics or changing sides this was not a force standing by and not being involved. There are so many sources citing involvement of the JNA in various aspects of the war that it makes little sense to argue otherwise. Polargeo (talk) 15:00, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

JNA also left many arms, ammunition, tanks, ships... to Croatian and Slovenian forces. That does not mean that JNA participated in war crimes commited by Croatian or Slovenian army. Also, after I WW Austro Hungarian army left its guns to Slovenian forces and Slovenian officers claimed independence from Austria and tried to conquire etnical German teritories like South Corinthia and Marburg (Maribor). That also does not mean that Austro Hungarian army is responsible for war crimes commited by Slovenian forces during this campains. When some country falls apart, that also happens with its army. You can not blame army of former state for war crimes commited with guns that once belonged to its army.Antidiskriminator (talk) 15:25, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

I am not blaming anyone I am just showing that they took part. It has also been shown by the ICTY [7] that they were instrumental in establishing Serb control of Visegrad. Now whilst this doesn't show war crimes sepcifically committed by the JNA it does show an active role in the conflict. This is what I have argued here. Polargeo (talk) 15:43, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes, you are right. They took part in conflict, but not by participating in it, but preventing it. I saw ICTY link you submited and did not find that JNA was instrumental in establishing Serb control. It was written that JNA prevented violence that started in april 1992, while being there, not showing "active role in conflict" but active role in preventing conflict with its presence. Only after JNA retreated war crimes were commited.Antidiskriminator (talk) 16:57, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes they helped prevent war crimes against civilians but the ICTY article clearly states "or JNA, entered Visegrad. It eventually withdrew on 19 May 1992, having established Serb control over the town and the municipality." Therefore it is clear that although they are not being accused of war crimes in that article they are clearly being mentioned as establishing Serb control of territory. So that is all I am saying there are plenty more sources but rather than waste a lot of time finding them this source should be sufficient to show that the JNA were involved in the war. Polargeo (talk) 17:05, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

You are totally right, but again completely wrong in interpretation of your source because you fail to have whole picture in mind. I do not know about plenty of other sources. Let us, for now, focus on the source you mentioned. "....having established Serb control over the town and municipality..." does not mean that JNA participated in war by its definition.."...organized violent conflict that is engaged in between two or more separate social entities...". JNA established Bosnian Serb control over the Visegrad (during Yugoslavias falling apart) the same way Austro Hungarian army established Slovenian control over Ljubljana at the end of WWI (when AH empire was falling apart). Some parts of Austro Hungarian army, mainly consisting of Hungarian soldiers and officers, retreated from Ljubljana and some parts of AH army, mainly consisted of Slovenian soldiers and officers, took off symbols of AH army from their uniforms, put Slovenian symbols on it, and continued having Ljubljana under its control. But nobody can say that AH army was fighting a war on Slovenians side because it practically established Slovenian control over Ljubljana..... Every single social entity in Europe was involved in some way in Bosnian war (by selling food, medicine, drugs, arms, soldiers or money to sides in war). But involvement of preventing war crimes against civilians (JNA's involvement in Bosnian war according to mentioned source) does not mean participation in violent conflicts, but preventing them? If you have more reliable source that can prove JNA's participation in violent conflicts please let us know. Antidiskriminator (talk) 01:56, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Not neutral point of view - Despite the evidence of .......

Despite the evidence of many kinds of war crimes conducted simultaneously by different Serb forces including JNA (VJ) in different parts of Bosnia and Herzegovina,

This section is against wikipedias Neutral Point of View. Author did not quoted or referenced to any evidence of war crime conducted by JNA (although there was war crime against JNA (Yugoslav Peoples Army) during its retreat from Tuzla and Sarajevo). If anybody saw a reason to asume that JNA participated in Bosnian war and its war crimes because it was retreated from Bosnia in May 1992, one month after beggining of war, there is no reason to any asumption or claim that Jugoslavian Army (VJ) which is army of federation consisting of Serbia and Montenegro, that never had any single soldier in Bosnia, participated in the war or commited a single one war crime. Also, despite the fact that all parties in Bosnian war comited different kind of war crimes, author is mentioning only Serb forces (simultaneously), which can lead readers to wrong conclusion that only Serb forces conducted war crimes in Bosnian war.

If someone has any proof that only serb forces in Bosnia commited war crimes and that JNA and JV commited any war crime in Bosnia please be so kind to quote the source. Otherwise, I propose this sentence to be changed to:

Despite the evidence of many kinds of war crimes conducted by all sides in Bosnian war in different parts of Bosnia and Herzegovina, .....

Antidiskriminator (talk) 15:16, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Removal, again, of references/referenced information is disruptive editing and can lead to you being blocked and or banned. Try reading before doing anymore disruptive editing.

• Official report of debates, Vol.10, Issues 3-4, by Council of Europe, (Strasbourg, 1996), 857.
• Peskin, Victor, International justice in Rwanda and the Balkans, (Cambridge University Press, 2008), 44;"...by his timing of indictments against the three senior officers in the Serbian-dominated Yugoslave People's Army for the 1991 massacre of 261 soldiers near Vukovar in Croatia."
• Hagan, John, Justice in the Balkans: prosecuting war crimes in the Hague Tribunal, (University of Chicago Press, 2003), 11.[6]
• Mann, Jonathan M., Health and human rights, (Routledge, 1999), 414.[7]
• Global justice: the politics of war crimes trials, by Kingsley Chiedu Moghalu, p53.[8]
• Human Rights Watch World Report 2008, by Human Rights Watch, p421.[9] --Kansas Bear (talk) 02:03, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
• Universal Jurisdiction: National Courts And the Prosecution of Serious, by Stephen Macedo, p87.[10]
• A problem from hell: America and the age of genocide, by Samantha Power, p291.[11]
• Stay the hand of vengeance: the politics of war crimes tribunals, by Gary Jonathan Bass, p.319.[12]
• Peace with justice?: war crimes and accountability in the former Yugoslavia, by Paul R. Williams, Michael P. Scharf, p.122.[13]
• Prime time crime: Balkan media in war and peace, by Kemal Kurspahić, p.76.[14] --Kansas Bear (talk) 02:20, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
• Documents: working papers, Volume 14, Issues 7-8, by Council of Europe, p.216.[15]
• The Protection of human rights in Europe: 1997, Volume 8, Book 2, p.163.[16]
• The United States and the International Criminal Court: national security, by Sarah B. Sewall, Carl Kaysen, p.52.[17] --Kansas Bear (talk) 03:12, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Al-queda participated in Bosnian war.

There are many sources about Al-quaeda involvement in Bosnian war, even in wikipedia. Here is one of them:

"The United Nation's International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY) has sentenced Bosnian Army Commander Rasim Delic to three years in prison for crimes committed by foreign Islamic fighters against captive Bosnian Serb soldiers during the 1992-1995 war. General Delic's defense argues that he did not have control over the El Mujahid Detachment and that they received their orders directly from al-Qaida commanders, bypassing the Bosnian Army. [8] "

Al-quaida should be mentioned as participant in Bosnian war by adding one sentence after the following sentence:

According to numerous International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia judgments the conflict involved Bosnia and the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (later Serbia and Montenegro) as well as Croatia.

to look like this:

According to numerous International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia judgments the conflict involved Bosnia and the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (later Serbia and Montenegro) as well as Croatia.. There are many sources indicating that Al-Qaeda was involved in Bosnian war too [9] trough participation of its members with the Bosnian mujahideen.

--Antidiskriminator (talk) 14:41, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

No you cannot put that "Al Qaeda" was involved based on that source. It is simply a headline grabber from years after the event. Yes there were islamist fighters but to specifically state Al Qaeda was a force in the war is wrong. Polargeo (talk) 14:51, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

A bi-product of the modern media. Every single islamist fighter in the world is "believed to be linked to Al Quaeda" it seems. The two are in danger of becoming synonymous... --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 15:04, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your comment. Besides above mentioned source, I put two links from en.wikipedia that also indicate involvement of Al Qaeda in Bosnian war. I did not propose to specifically state that Al Qaeda was force in the war, but that was involved. Like wikipedia links are showing. Can you double check it?--Antidiskriminator (talk) 15:11, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

As I already said somewhere. When the subject is the Al Qaeda bases in Europe, Bosnia and Kosovo are well known, but when the subject is the wars involving Serbia recently, you are only allowed to say the Serbs fought civilians, women and children. FkpCascais (talk) 05:07, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

I do not understand logic of what you said. In Bosnian war were killed at least 4.000 civilians that were etnicly Bosnian Serbs (according to this article). There is no logic to assume that one is allowed to stipulate only Serbs commited war crimes by killing civilians, because it would mean that they were killing themselves.Antidiskriminator (talk) 08:40, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Unreliable sources for VJ commiting war crimes in Bosnian war.

Sources of informations prooving that VJ (Yugoslav Army - Vojska Jugoslavije) commited war crimes in Bosnian war are one report of debates, two University Press texts and one sciantific book of health and human rights. Since this is serious matter that was under surveliance of ICTY, failing to provide reliable sources and quoting below mentioned sources is breaking of all three main wikipedia policies, NPV, Original research and Verifiability.

^ Official report of debates, Vol.10, Issues 3-4, by Council of Europe, (Strasbourg, 1996), 857.

^ Peskin, Victor, International justice in Rwanda and the Balkans, (Cambridge University Press, 2008), 44.

^ Hagan, John, Justice in the Balkans: prosecuting war crimes in the Hague Tribunal, (University of Chicago Press, 2003), 11.

^ Mann, Jonathan M., Health and human rights, (Routledge, 1999), 414.

Therefore I propose deleting above mentioned unreliable sources.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 01:36, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

I propose deleting above mentioned nonreliable sources together with two letters (VJ) from the sentence in which VJ is stipulated as army that commited war crimes in Bosnian war, since VJ which means Vojska Jugoslavije, or Army of Yugoslavia, was born after collapse of Socialistic Yugoslavia in May 1992. and never had a single soldier in Bosnia (since it was Army of federal state of Serbia and Montenegro). Stating that VJ commited war crimes against civilians and putting one debate, two university press releases and one health brochure as source for VJ commiting war crimes in Bosnia can be at least considered as nonreliable source. We are all here to write verifyable articles, not informations containing serious statments with unreliable sources. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 10:49, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

If the sources do not mention VJ and only JNA then the "VJ" should be removed. Polargeo (talk) 11:09, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Although I should say the statement one debate, two university press releases and one health brochure is wrong. Cambridge University Press is an academic publisher and this generally indicates a very reliable source. Polargeo (talk) 11:13, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

I suggest asking User:Kansas Bear if the sources he cites mention VJ. But these sources should not simply be removed from the article. Polargeo (talk) 11:16, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

You are right. Cambridge University Press can not be considered as unreliable source, but quoted text that which was stipulated as source of information that VJ commited war crimes in Bosnian war, is connected with Vukovar which is in Croatia, not Bosnia and Herzegovina, in period before VJ existed. This can not be source for both VJ and JNA commiting war crimes in Bosnian War. I accepted your suggestion and prepared detailed answer that can be found under below title. By below mentioned text I asked User:Kansas Bear to check his sources, as suggested. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 13:21, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

VJ commited war crimes in Bosnian war?

You put three references that does not have any links to online available text prooving that VJ (Vojska Jugoslavije - Yugoslav Army) commited war crimes in Bosnian War. Those three references are almost only one without possibility for online view. Can you please be so kind to quote at least one of them with information about war crimes commited by VJ? Since two of them are from press and one of them is from debates, can you please be so kind to check about more solid sources like some ICTY judge decision? I think you made mistake with VJ. Please try to check this matter. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 01:23, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Still having problems?

• Official report of debates, Vol.10, Issues 3-4, by Council of Europe, (Strasbourg, 1996), 857.[10]
• Peskin, Victor, International justice in Rwanda and the Balkans, (Cambridge University Press, 2008), 44;"...by his timing of indictments against the three senior officers in the Serbian-dominated Yugoslave People's Army for the 1991 massacre of 261 soldiers near Vukovar in Croatia.
• Hagan, John, Justice in the Balkans: prosecuting war crimes in the Hague Tribunal, (University of Chicago Press, 2003), 11.[11]
• Mann, Jonathan M., Health and human rights, (Routledge, 1999), 414.[12]
• Global justice: the politics of war crimes trials, by Kingsley Chiedu Moghalu, p53.[13]
• Human Rights Watch World Report 2008, by Human Rights Watch, p421.[14] --Kansas Bear (talk) 02:03, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
• Universal Jurisdiction: National Courts And the Prosecution of Serious, by Stephen Macedo, p87.[15]
• A problem from hell: America and the age of genocide, by Samantha Power, p291.[16]
• Stay the hand of vengeance: the politics of war crimes tribunals, by Gary Jonathan Bass, p.319.[17]
• Peace with justice?: war crimes and accountability in the former Yugoslavia, by Paul R. Williams, Michael P. Scharf, p.122.[18]
• Prime time crime: Balkan media in war and peace, by Kemal Kurspahić, p.76.[19] --Kansas Bear (talk) 02:20, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
• Documents: working papers, Volume 14, Issues 7-8, by Council of Europe, p.216.[20]
• The Protection of human rights in Europe: 1997, Volume 8, Book 2, p.163.[21]
• The United States and the International Criminal Court: national security, by Sarah B. Sewall, Carl Kaysen, p.52.[22] --Kansas Bear (talk) 02:59, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

No, I am not having problems. You do. With finding reliable sources. One should be aware that JNA is different than VJ. JNA is army of Socialistic Yugoslavia that ceesed to exist after Bosnia proclaimed indipendence. VJ is army of federal state of Serbia and Montenegro. I stated that you failed to submit reliable sources that VJ commited war crimes in Bosnian war. You tried to deny me with new big list of completely nonreliable sources:

1) Official report of debates - In this source at the page you stipulated I found out only JNA (Yugoslav Peoples Army), not VJ. Also, this is what Mr. Škrabalo from Croatia said about situation in Bosnia. Since Croatia was involved in the Bosnian war, this can hardly be any reliable source for commiting war crimes.

2) International justice in Rwanda and the Balkans - you quoted text that is connected with Vukovar which is in Croatia, not Bosnia and Herzegovina, in period before VJ existed. This can not be source for both VJ and JNA commiting war crimes in Bosnian War.

3) Justice in the Balkans: prosecuting war crimes in the Hague Tribunal - In this source author wrote about "JNA, later known as VJ" but not about VJ. Also, you referenced on page 11 that contains what prosecution against Milosevic claimed, but never proved true and never became part of any judge decision. That means that this can not be source for JNA either.

4) Health and human rights - This is article about forensic findings in mass graves in Vukovar, Croatia. Not in Bosnia.

5) Global justice: the politics of war crimes trials, by Kingsley Chiedu Moghalu - on the page that you stipulated, there is no reference for the claims about Yugoslav Army invading Bosnia in april 1992. Yugoslav Army did not exist at that time. Because of the lack of the sources and obvious mistakes this can also be considered as nonreliable source.

6) Human Rights Watch World Report 2008 - There is not single one sentence in the page you mentioned, that is indicating that VJ commited war crimes in war in Bosnia. Scorpions that are mentioned that commited war crimes in Bosnia, are clearly defined as paramilitary force. This is again wrong and nonreliable source.

7) Universal Jurisdiction: National Courts And the Prosecution of Serious, by Stephen Macedo, p87. - There is not single one sentence in the page you mentioned, that is indicating that VJ commited war crimes in war in Bosnian war. The text mentioned that some former officers of VJ were suspected to be involved in some war crimes, but not in Bosnian war. ICTY was responsible for war crimes in the whole former Yugoslavia teritory, that covers Slovenia, Croatia, Kosovo.. not only Bosnia. Maybe it would be better if you can submit some ICTY decision, if there is any. This is again wrong and nonreliable source.

8) A problem from hell: America and the age of genocide, by Samantha Power, p291. - This link could not be opened.

9) Stay the hand of vengeance: the politics of war crimes tribunals, by Gary Jonathan Bass, p.319. - In this source, VJ was again mentioned in connection with war crimes in Croatia, not Bosnia, that happened before VJ existed. This is again wrong and nonreliable source.

10) Peace with justice?: war crimes and accountability in the former Yugoslavia, by Paul R. Williams, Michael P. Scharf, p.122. - same as 9. This is again wrong and nonreliable source.

11) Prime time crime: Balkan media in war and peace, by Kemal Kurspahić, p.76. - Same as 9.

12) Documents: working papers, Volume 14, Issues 7-8, by Council of Europe, p.216. - Same as 9. but instead of Vukovar it is Dubrovnik, again in Croatia.

13) The Protection of human rights in Europe: 1997, Volume 8, Book 2, p.163. - This is text about Yugoslav Peoples Army, not Yugoslav Army. In the text it is clearly stated on the beggining of it that it is written against reports from "...media and NGOs..". Again, wrong and nonreliable source.

14) The United States and the International Criminal Court: national security, by Sarah B. Sewall, Carl Kaysen, p.52. - Same as 12.

None of above mentioned sources reliably stated that VJ (Vojska Jugoslavije) commited single one war crime in Bosnian war. You even failed to provide source for JNA (Yugoslav Peoples Army) commited war crimes in Bosnia. Will you please be so kind to try harder to find reliable sources. I am sure that you can do it, if there are any, since you are experienced wikipedian with knowledge of history. If you can not provide reliable sources for your claim that VJ commited war crimes in Bosnian war I will be forced to delete it together with your unreliable sources . --Antidiskriminator (talk) 12:50, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

I have looked through the sources you present. It is not sensible to state "VJ" was involved in the Bosnian War based on these sources. It is even tenuous to state JNA committed war crimes in Bosnia as the references point to Croatia rather than Bosnia. However it is perfectly reasonable based on the sources to state that the JNA was involved in the war in Bosnia in some capacity and that many elements of the JNA basically became the Bosnian Serb army. Polargeo (talk) 13:45, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

It was not my intention to deny that JNA was involved in the war in Bosnia. My intention was to underline that above mentioned sources does not prove that VJ conducted war crimes in Bosnian war, as author wrote in the article and Kansas Bear tried to support with unreliable sources. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 14:00, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Agree Polargeo (talk) 14:09, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

According to this article[23], the Vukovar massacre was part of the Bosnian War.

Meanwhile, control over central Croatia was seized by Croatian Serb forces in conjunction with the JNA Corpus from Bosnia & Herzegovina, under the leadership of Ratko Mladic. These attacks were marked by the killings of captured soldiers and heavy civilian casualties (Ovcara; Škabrnja), and were the subject of war crimes indictments by the ICTY for elements of the Serb political & military leadership.

And the simple removal of (VJ) would have sufficed, compared to the massive removal of referenced information[24] done by Antidiskriminator. So according to wikipedia, the Yugoslav Wars do include the Bosnian War which does mention the Vukovar massacre, which is support by references. --Kansas Bear (talk) 01:13, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes but this article states the Bosnian War ran from March 1992 and you wish to use related war crimes in Croatia that occured in November 1991 to back up the statement. I know these are related incidents but we have to be more accurate than that here. Polargeo (talk) 10:30, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Rochass vandalism

On February 11th 2010. User: Rochass deleted referenced informations, changed text without discussion and added some informations despite lack of sources. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Antidiskriminator (talk • contribs) 20:45, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

On February 13th 2010. within some changes of original article User: Rochass again deleted referenced informations, changed text without discussion and added some informations despite lack of sources.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 18:29, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Just individual war crime?

In the following sentence in the article it is written:

Both Serbs and Croats were indicted and convicted of systematic war crimes (joint criminal enterprise), while Bosniaks just of individual ones.

I believe that any war crime is very serious matter and that it should not be considered as JUST. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 09:13, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

According to an International Court of Justice judgment, Serbia gave military and financial support ...?

Referenced source does not support statement that Serbia gave military and financial support ... which is part of the following sentences at the very beginning of the article:

According to an International Court of Justice judgment, Serbia gave military and financial support to Serb forces which consisted of the Yugoslav People's Army, the Army of Republika Srpska, the Serbian Ministry of the Interior, the Ministry of the Interior of Republika Srpska and Serb Territorial Defense Forces. Croatia gave military support to Croat forces of the self-proclaimed Croatian Community of Herzeg-Bosnia. Bosnian government forces were led by the Army of the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina.

Referenced source does contain following text:

Of the military and paramilitary units active in the hostilities, there were in April 1992 five types of armed formations involved in Bosnia: first, the Yugoslav People’s Army (JNA), subsequently the Yugoslav Army (VJ); second, volunteer units supported by the JNA and later by the VJ, and the Ministry of the Interior (MUP) of the FRY; third, municipal Bosnian Serb Territorial Defence (TO) detachments; and, fourth, police forces of the Bosnian Serb Ministry of the Interior

in which it is clearly stated that Yugoslav People’s Army (JNA) and the Ministry of the Interior (MUP) of the FRY (Federal Republic of Yugoslavia) supported ......

Therefore, according to the referenced source, it is only possible to state that

Yugoslavia (FRY) gave military and financial support......

and I propose to change this in the article. My proposal is also supported by the numerous judgements of the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia who clearly stated that Bosnian war involved:

Bosnia and the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (later Serbia and Montenegro) as well as Croatia.

which is clearly stated at the begining of the article.

Therefore I propose to change this part of sentence to:

Yugoslavia (FRY) gave military and financial support......--Antidiskriminator (talk) 10:55, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

This is a clear case of them being one and the same {citation needed}. If any of this were changed to say FRY then every time it was stated it would have to be qualified by the statement "this is essentially Serbia" to avoid confusion because FRY was just Serbia and Montenegro at this point, for which we should not really need a source to abreviate to Serbia in this instance. Polargeo (talk) 11:47, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

First of all, I would like to thank you for your help till now. I am trying to help this article to have verifiable content. As for Serbia equals Yugoslavia matter, I do not agree that it is clear case of them being one and the same. Despite the fact that for many different purposes, maybe one can find that Yugoslavia "was essentially Serbia", in real life, legally, Yugoslavia was separate legal entity than Serbia. Yugoslavia had two assemblies and for most important decisions had to be decisions of representatives of both Serbia and Montenegro. Yugoslavia was state that had its own institutions (government, president, assemblies.....) that are different than institutions of two republics that constituted Yugoslavia (Serbia and Montenegro). There were some institutions that member republics like Serbia and Montenegro did not have, like army, foreign affairs departments.... In the referenced source you can only find Yugoslavia. Is it alright to write in article Serbia, and in referenced source to have Yugoslavia? If it is left to us to decide what is clear case other than it is written in the referenced source, than I am afraid one can write whatever he wants. At the beginning of the article it is written that ITCY decided that in Bosnian war one of the participants was Yugoslavia, not Serbia. I do not see how can you interpret court decision the way you find appropriate and clear case. Do you have any other argument better than "this is essentially Serbia"? If you don't, then either change everywhere in the article to be Serbia instead of Yugoslavia, or respect the simple fact that Yugoslavia was sovereign state with its own institutions and legal entity and correct mistake in the above mentioned article --Antidiskriminator (talk) 15:04, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Please see Federal Republic of Yugoslavia. We don't need to give sources every time the obvious is stated. Polargeo (talk) 15:20, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Also Serbia (7.3 million people) and Montenegro (0.6 million). I have no objection to you adding some qualification (e.g. Serbia and Montenegro) but removing "Serbia" in this case and replacing it with "Yugoslavia" is simply misleading for the general reader in many ways and we should avoid that. Polargeo (talk) 15:29, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

I think that in the period that we talk about, Serbia had couple of million people more than you stated. Montenegro could have 0,006 million people at the time, legally FR Yugoslavia is completely different than Serbia which could not make any decision without Montenegro. If it is one, why Montenegro is now separate entity? But I will not argue anymore in this matter and I can only hope that nobody will be mislead by the court decisions of ICTY. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 15:48, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

As I said I don't have any issue with you adding qualifications to the text but removing the word Serbia and replacing it with Yugoslavia will be misleading. Polargeo (talk) 16:05, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Wrong commander of Yugoslavia military forces.

At the begining of the article, and in the text box, it is written that belligerents in Bosnian war were Republika Srpska and FR Yugoslavia. Then, below, in the same text box in the article it is stated that Slobodan Milošević, president of Serbia, was commander of Yugoslavia military forces. It is wrong because in the period of Bosnian war Slobodan Milošević was president of Serbia, not Yugoslavia. Slobodan Milošević did command with Yugoslavia military forces, but only after he was elected for president of FRY, and that was in 1997, two years after Bosnian war. During Bosnian war, president of FRY and therefore commander of Yugoslavia military forces were:

15 Jun 1992 - 1 Jun 1993 Dobrica Ćosić

25 Jun 1993 - 25 Jun 1997 Zoran Lilić

It is obvious mistake and, I believe, should be corrected.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 15:37, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

It may be a mistake but your arguments fall on semantics rather than the true command structure. Any critical historian is well aware that neither of the two individuals you mention had a fraction of the power that Milošević had and to suggest either could really go in a different direction to him is evident by the fact that when Dobrica Ćosić turned against Milošević he was quickly removed from power. That does not really sound like someone who was really in control. Polargeo (talk) 16:03, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

If any critical historian stick to semantics rather than true command structure, he would be well aware that neither of the three individuals you mentioned had a fraction of the power that XYZ had, and to suggest either could really go in a different direction to XYZ is evident by the fact that when Slobodan Milošević turned against XYZ he was quickly removed from the power. One can put names of several presidents of some states in this period instead of XYZ (USA, Russian, UK, Germany, France......). I believe that wikipedia is all about verifiable informations, not about semantics..--Antidiskriminator (talk) 08:14, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Okay so provide the source that XYZABC was in control of the forces and change it. Polargeo (talk) 13:30, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

I will then add Slobodan Milošević back in as a "likely commander or co-commander" per the more legally (if not historically) accurate ICTY source "either alone or acting in concert..., effectively controlled or substantially influenced ... the JNA and later the VJ ... as well as Serb paramilitary groups." Polargeo (talk) 13:40, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

I think that someone should first provide verifiable source that Slobodan Milošević effectively controlled or substantially influenced.... Source that you put in above sentence is not an official document (case information sheet) with statement written "According to the indictment....". Indicement was not proved since Slobodan Milošević has died in the prison before trial was finished. There can be found numerous sources for his successful defense against many indicements during the trial. Regardless this I believe that indicement that is not confirmed by court's decision is not verifiable source.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 14:23, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

You should note that an ICTY case information sheet is above any sort of newspaper or even national government reference we may provide and is only noted as not being fully legal because it is going by the strict legal standards of an international court. It is a very high standard for a wikipedia reference. Polargeo (talk) 14:29, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Any court's case information sheet is below constitution of state and FY during Bosnian war was state with its own constitution. Constitution is source of highest possible standard. Much higher than any indictments not confirmed by court's decisions. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 14:40, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

An interesting argument about international law I agree but we are talking about WP:RS here and in this case the ICTY case information sheet is a very high standard of source. Polargeo (talk) 14:46, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

"Article 135 In wartime and peacetime, the Army of Yugoslavia shall be under the command of the President of the Republic,..." quote from CONSTITUTION OF THE FEDERAL REPUBLIC OF YUGOSLAVIA--Antidiskriminator (talk) 14:44, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Fine as I said feel free to put this in with the reference. I will then add in the information concerning the overall control exercised by Slobodan Milošević for balance. Polargeo (talk) 14:49, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't know how.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 15:18, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't have time to do this now but I can have a look over the next few days and see if there is a good way of adding it. If you have any suggestions before then it would be good to suggest them here on the talkpage first. Polargeo (talk) 15:27, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Of course, like I always did.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 15:58, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

dangerous and illegitimate practice

Territories of the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina and the Republic of Croatia controlled by Serb forces 1992-1995. The War Crimes Tribual accused Milošević and other Serb leaders of "attempting to create a Greater Serbia, a Serbian state encompassing the Serb-populated areas of Croatia and Bosnia, and achieved by forcibly removing non-Serbs from large geographical areas through the commission of crimes.

I noticed that some contributors remove images with referenced description without prior discussion on talk page. This dangerous and illegitimate practice leads us to edit warring and should not be used on Wikipedia. I repeat, please use talk page if you are disputing something. Edit summary is simply not enough for dispute resolution.

So, if someone thinks that this image is not appropriate, let's discuss it here.--Mladifilozof (talk) 03:10, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

The discussion about this is taking place in many talk pages, so please avoid missleading other editors. There is no need to discuss this in every single article talk page in all articles you decide to place this image. You are the one introducing a controversial content in a number of articles, and you have been reverted by a number of editors. So please, stop this desinformation and it´s you who should discuss this, and not escape to other talk pages each time and cry again. FkpCascais (talk) 17:42, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Why Slobodan Milosevic doesn’t appear on the infobox?

It was (and it's) an open secret that he was the mastermind behind Bosnian War, as we can see in TIME, BBC, CNN or any other reliable western media source.

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 200.232.231.107 (talk • contribs) 01:50, 26 May 2007.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.246.34.101 (talk) 03:03, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Lead section too long

"opening section is too long" tag? I mean, it should be made more concise, not tagged, but.. n-dimensional §кakkl€ 20:32, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

I agree that the introduction could be shortened and made more concise and coherent. Theres a lot of specific details and paragraphs that certainly doesn't need to be in the introduction. The introduction is supposed to be a summary of the article with max 4 paragraphs according to Wikipedia:LEAD. --Nirvana77 (talk) 19:43, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

I've seen a tag before for lead sections too short. -ErinHowarth (talk) 20:45, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Clarification

While reading this article, I found the last sentence of the lead paragraph to be very confusing.

Genocide is the most serious war crime the Serbs were convicted of, crimes against humanity, a charge second in gravity only to genocide (i.e. ethnic cleansing) for the Croats, and breaches of the Geneva Conventions for the Bosniaks.

So, I changed it in this way:

Genocide (i.e. ethnic cleansing) is the most serious war crime the Serbs were convicted of. Crimes against humanity, a charge second in gravity only to genocide, is the most serious war crime the Croats were convicted of. Breaches of the Geneva Conventions is the most serious war crime the Bosniaks were convicted of.

I'm a little worried that I might have changed the meaning of the sentence, but that was not my intent. I just wanted it to be more clear. -ErinHowarth (talk) 20:43, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm OK with your change, but I think that some further rewording is required. We probably need to say "Serb forces", "Croat forces" and "Bosniak forces" rather than "Serbs", "Croats" and "Bosniaks". At the moment, it sounds as if Serbs, Croats and Bosniaks as groups were found guilty. Also, wasn't the Bosnian army nominally multi-ethnic, rather than completly Bosniak? Cordless Larry (talk) 07:58, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Intro

The introduction talks about the war's belligerents, international involvement, cessation of hostilities, and finally war crimes and debates over genocide. Great. But after reading this intro, I still have absolutely no idea why this war started or what it was about. The intro should sum up the article, and though there's great coverage of the background, immediate casus belli, and subsequent timeline of hostilities in the main body of text, none of this information is in the intro. Can someone knowledgeable about the subject please rewrite/expand the introduction to include this important information? Otebig (talk) 08:50, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

I agree. The introduction definitely needs to be made more coherent and concise. I can assume that for people unfamiliar with the conflict the introduction must very confusing, mired in statistics and numbers. The introduction needs to be a relatively short and general overview of the conflict. I will see if I can make some changes if there is a consensus that the introduction needs to be improved/revamped. --Nirvana77 (talk) 11:55, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. The introduction shouldn't need to be so long, or to require references. Cordless Larry (talk) 14:45, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

This is how I imagined the introduction might look like. I'm sure there are details or areas that need improvement or are incorrect. Although I think this comes closer to an actual introduction, it's shorter, more coherent, more concise and gives a better overview of the conflict.

The Bosnian War or the War in Bosnia and Herzegovina was an international armed conflict that took place in Bosnia and Herzegovina between April 1992 and December 1995. The war involved several sides. The main belligerents was the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina, Republika Srpska (Bosnian Serbs) and Herzeg-Bosnia (Bosnian Croats). Both the Bosnian Serbs and the Bosnian Croats enjoyed substantial political and military backing from Serbia and Croatia.

The war came about as a result of the breakup of Yugoslavia. Following the Slovenian and Croatian secessions from Yugoslavia in 1991, the multiethnic Yugoslavian republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina, which consisted of mainly Muslim Bosniaks (43%), Orthodox Serbs (31%) and Catholic Croats (18%), passed a referendum for independence on February 29, 1992. This was rejected by the Serb minority who had boycotted the referendum and established their own republic of Republika Srpska. Bosnian Serb forces, supported by the Serbian government of Slobodan Milošević and the Yugoslav People's Army, thereafter attacked the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina in order to secure Serbian territory and war soon broke out across Bosnia.

It was predominantly a territorial conflict, initially between the Bosniaks and the Bosnian Croats on one side and the Bosnian Serbs on the other, although these factions changed objectives and allegiances several times at various stages of the war. The war was characterized by bitter fighting, indiscriminate shelling of cities and towns, ethnic cleansing, systematic mass rape and genocide. Events like the Siege of Sarajevo, Omarska camp and the Srebrenica massacre would come to typify the conflict.

The Serbs, although initially superior due to the vast amount of weapons and resources provided by the JNA eventually lost momentum as Bosniaks and Croats allied themselves against the Serbs in 1994 with the creation of the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina following the Bosniak-Croat war. Following the Srebrenica and Markale massacres, NATO intervened during the 1995 Operation Deliberate Force against the positions of the Army of Republika Srpska, which internationalized the conflict, but only in its final stages. The war was brought to an end after the signing of the General Framework Agreement for Peace in Bosnia and Herzegovina in Paris on 14 December 1995. Peace negotiations were held in Dayton, Ohio, and were finalized on 21 December 1995. The accords are known as the Dayton Agreement. A 1995 report by the Central Intelligence Agency found Serbian forces responsible for 90% of the war crimes committed during the conflict. As of early 2008 the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia had convicted 45 Serbs, 12 Croats and 4 Bosniaks of war crimes in connection with the war in Bosnia. The most recent research places the number of killed people at around 100,000–110,000 and nearly 2 million displaced (see Casualties) making it the most devastating conflict in Europe since the end of World War II. --Nirvana77 (talk) 10:41, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

I think that looks to be along the right lines. Republika Srpska and Herzeg-Bosnia could perhaps do with explaining, because a reader new to the subject likely won't know what these were/are. Also, I'm uncomfortable about having "Bosnian Serbs" and "Bosnian Croats" in brackets after them, because it suggests that all Serbs supported the RS and all Croats Herzeg-Bosnia. Perhaps something like "composed of Bosnian Serbs" etc. would be better? Cordless Larry (talk) 20:28, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes, of course. The Bosnian Serbs and the Bosnian Croats enjoyed substantial political and military backing from Serbia and Croatia line could in that case also be changed to Republika Srpska and Herzeg-Bosnia. As for explaining the origins of Republika Srpska and Herzeg-Bosnia, perhaps "the self-proclaimed Serb and Croat entities within Bosnia and Herzegovina"? I guess you could elaborate that these were largely a response to the independence referendum, if that is needed. --Nirvana77 (talk) 13:19, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

That sounds good to me. Cordless Larry (talk) 13:57, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Made changes to the introduction. Any problems/inaccuracies can be taken up for discussion. --Nirvana77 (talk) 16:18, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Disagree. The main reason, Nirvana tried to change intro is the fact he wanted to remove Croatian involvment, and Karadjodjevo agreement. Alan.Ford.Jn (talk) 16:08, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Great, another Historičar sock puppet account. I guess this is how the introduction got destroyed in the first place, all the nationalists wanted to have their specific things pushed into the intro. I could refer you to the Wikipedia:Lead section guidelines or the fact that Croatian involvement and the Karadjodjevo/Graz agreements are covered in the main body of the article and that it actually states in the intro that Herzeg-Bosnia received political and military support from Croatia, but I don't know if that will be necessary since you probably will be suspended soon enough. --Nirvana77 (talk) 16:42, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Sure. Argumentum ad hominem, yeah of course. You removed Karadjordjevo agreement, the key point of the war from intro. Alan.Ford.Jn (talk) 19:30, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Alan, rather than reverting Nirvana77's changes, how about adding what you think should be added or suggesting it here? The introduction has been improved and while it might need further work, there's no sense in just reverting back to the old version. Cordless Larry (talk) 20:01, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Nirvana completely changed intro, he removed much of the intro related to war crimes, as well as Croatian-Serbian deal to devide Bosnia, and ICTY sources as something very important. So I made new changed version, and I think we should discuss every sentence someone wants to change. Because, I don't believe in good intentions of Nirvana. It is clear he tried to get rid of all unpopular things related to Croatia from intro. Alan.Ford.Jn (talk) 20:56, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Alan, I think you misunderstand what an introduction is for. Your additions made the introduction way too long, which was one of the original concerns that led to the discussion that resulted in it being rewritten. Detailed, sourced information belongs in the main article text, not the introduction. Cordless Larry (talk) 21:13, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Larry, I understand it, but as you can note, this is major change of intro. So, lets go paragraph by paragraph, section by section. After Nirvana's edits, we lost information about war crimes by ethnic groups (this information is not removed to other section of article at all), etc. Alan.Ford.Jn (talk) 12:19, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

It is supposed to be a major change, since the earlier introduction was so incoherent and generally bad as it was for the reasons we have stated in the discussion. You obviously haven't bothered to look beyond anything but the introduction since nothing from the earlier intro was permanently removed, but moved to appropriate section in the article. Please point out exactly what information that was permanently removed and not just moved to another section. --Nirvana77 (talk) 13:09, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Alan, we haven't lost material on war crimes. Nirvana's introduction includes the following: "As of early 2008 the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia had convicted 45 Serbs, 12 Croats and 4 Bosniaks of war crimes in connection with the war in Bosnia". It also mentions the CIA report. Cordless Larry (talk) 13:50, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Also, please take a look at this, which shows that Nirvana moved the material dropped from the introduction to the main text of the article. Cordless Larry (talk) 14:00, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Another fairly large change from Alan although it wasn't a total revert this time. Notably:

The war came about as a result of the breakup of Yugoslavia. Following the Slovenian and Croatian secessions from Yugoslavia in 1991, the multiethnic Yugoslavian republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina, which consisted of mainly Muslim Bosniaks (43%), Orthodox Serbs (31%) and Catholic Croats (17%), passed a referendum for independence on February 29, 1992. This was rejected by Bosnian Serb political representatives, who had boycotted the referendum and established their own republic of Republika Srpska. Following the declaration of independence, Bosnian Serb forces, supported by the Serbian government of Slobodan Milošević and the Yugoslav People's Army (JNA) attacked the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina in order to secure Serbian territory and war soon broke out across Bosnia, accompanied by the ethnic cleansing of the Bosniak population, especially in Eastern Bosnia.[4] The state administration of Bosnia and Herzegovina effectively ceased to function having lost control over the entire territory. While they formally supported the declaration of independence, Bosnian Croat forces and Croatian president Franjo Tuđman also aimed at securing parts of Bosnia and Herzegovina as Croatian. Secret discussions between Franjo Tuđman and Slobodan Milošević on the division of Bosnia and Herzegovina were held as early as March 1991, resulting in the Karađorđevo agreement.

It was predominantly a territorial conflict, initially between the Bosniaks and the Bosnian Croats on one side and the Bosnian Serbs on the other, although these factions changed objectives and allegiances several times at various stages of the war. The war was characterized by bitter fighting, indiscriminate shelling of cities and towns, ethnic cleansing, systematic mass rape and genocide. Events such as the Siege of Sarajevo, Omarska camp and the Srebrenica massacre would come to typify the conflict.

Once again I think there is a failure to understand the point of the introduction. I don't think that there is a need for such a disproportionately large (and poorly explained) part to describe Karađorđevo agreement which is arguably of less importance than the Graz agreement in the context of the Bosnian war. Note that these is no mention of Karađorđevo in the accompanied BBC citation. I would suggest:

The war came about as a result of the breakup of Yugoslavia. Following the Slovenian and Croatian secessions from Yugoslavia in 1991, the multiethnic Yugoslavian republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina, which consisted of mainly Muslim Bosniaks (43%), Orthodox Serbs (31%) and Catholic Croats (18%), passed a referendum for independence on February 29, 1992. This was rejected by Bosnian Serb political representatives, who had boycotted the referendum and established their own republic of Republika Srpska. Bosnian Serb forces, supported by the Serbian government of Slobodan Milošević and the Yugoslav People's Army (JNA) thereafter attacked the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina in order to secure Serbian territory and war soon broke out across Bosnia.

It was predominantly a territorial conflict, initially between the Bosniaks and the Bosnian Croats on one side and the Bosnian Serbs on the other, although these factions changed objectives and allegiances several times at various stages of the war. For example, the Serb and Croat political leadership agreed on a partition of Bosnia with the Karađorđevo and Graz agreements, resulting in the Croats forces turning on the Army of the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina and the the Croat-Bosniak war. The war was characterized by bitter fighting, indiscriminate shelling of cities and towns, ethnic cleansing, systematic mass rape and genocide. Events like the Siege of Sarajevo, Omarska camp and the Srebrenica massacre would come to typify the conflict. --Nirvana77 (talk) 23:09, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

I'd support that, subject to fixing some minor errors ("the the Croat-Bosniak war"). I'm also unsure whether we should describe one of the sides as "Bosniak". As is established later in the article, the Army of the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina was at least partially multiethnic. Cordless Larry (talk) 07:11, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

In fact, I dealt with this issue last night. Cordless Larry (talk) 07:13, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Larry, the following sentence is inaccurate:

"It was predominantly a territorial conflict, initially between the Army of the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina and Bosnian Croat forces on one side and Bosnian Serb forces on the other, although these factions changed objectives and allegiances several times at various stages of the war."

1. It was not pedominantly a territorial conflict. Srebrenica genocide or Lašva Valley ethnic cleansing are examples of intention proven by ICJ and ICTY to destroy one ethnic group primarily.

2. Croat-Bosniak War started in June 1992, and Serbian attacks in April 1992, which means it was not a conflict initially between the Army of the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina and Bosnian Croat forces on one side and Bosnian Serb forces on the other. Initially it was an attack by Serb forces on Bosniak population in Eastern parts of the country, and on Bosniak and Croat population in Western parts. But the conflict until 1994 was between Serbian and Croatian forces on one side and Bosnian forces (dominated by Bosniaks) on another.

Alan.Ford.Jn (talk) 22:16, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments. I'm not sure that acts of ethnic cleansing and attempted genocide mean it wasn't a territorial conflict. Surely they were acts aimed at securing Serb dominance over the territories that they took place in? Perhaps we should clarify the sentence by noting that it was territorial and involved deliberate attempts to wipe out populations based on their ethnicity? On the second point, could you suggest an alternative wording? Cordless Larry (talk) 08:50, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

1. Makes no sense. Srebrenica and Lašva Valley was acts of ethnic cleansing. The war in itself was still a territorial one considering both the Serbs and the Croats were fighting for what they perceived as Serbian and Croat land that were to be annexed by Serbia and Croatia.

2. It is widely known that ARBiH and HVO fought side by side throughout much of 1992 against the VRS with the full-scale conflict starting with the Gornji Vakuf shelling in January 1993. The fact that the nationalistic elemtents of the HVO, that later took full control, had sporadic fighting with Bosniak forces does not change this. On this I could refer you to one of the better fact based books regarding the conflict, Yugoslavia: Death of a Nation by Allan Little. Even if we were to accept that the war did start in the summer of 1992, they would still have been allies initially since the war started in the spring of 1992, also keeping in mind that the heaviest fighting of the entire war was concentrated to these first months of the war. --Nirvana77 (talk) 10:42, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

That actually raises a wider point, that we should make better use of books such as Silber and Little's. It's remarkable given the large number of books written about the break-up of Yugoslavia that we don't really cite them. The article manages to cite a travel guide in support of a statement about the start of the war, but not the most well-known history book! Cordless Larry (talk) 12:24, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Disagree with second point of Nirvana's comment. Croat authorities during 1992 made political and military preparation for the conflict in 1993:

• In April 1992 Anto Valenta, a Croat leader in the Vitez municipality in the Lašva Valley, told the municipality's Bosniaks representatives that they should take their orders from the self-proclaimed Croatian Community of Herzeg-Bosnia.[25]

• On 10 April 1992 Mate Boban decreed that the Bosnian Territorial Defence (the only legal forces in Bosnia at the time) which had been created the day before, was illegal on self-proclaimed Croat territory.[26]

• On 21 April 1992 Croatian Crisis Staff took over the powers of the Kiseljak Municipal Assembly, although under the constitution of Bosnia and Herzegovina, only the Municipal Assembly is entitled to exercise those powers, which lead to many discriminatory measures against the Bosnian Muslim authorities and population in Kiseljak.[27]

• On 6 May 1992 Graz agreement was signed between Serb leader Radovan Karadžić and Croat leader Mate Boban. It was meant to limit conflict between Serb and Croat forces by allowing both parties to concentrate on attacks against Bosnians.[28]

• On 10 May 1992 Croats issued an ultimatum to all Bosnian military units in Busovača calling on them to surrender their weapons and to place themselves under Croat command. [29]

• On 11 May 1992 Tihomir Blaškić declared the Bosnian Territorial Defence illegal on the territory of the Kiseljak municipality.

• On 22 May 1992 Bosnian state organs in the Busovača municipality were abolished. Bosniaks were forced to sign an act of allegiance to the Croat authorities, fell victim to numerous attacks on shops and businesses and, gradually, left the area out of fear that they would be the victims of mass crimes.

• June 1992: Croat military formations took over the headquarters in Vitez and the Municipal Assembly building and raised the flags of Herzeg-Bosnia and of Croatia. [30]

• 15 June 1992: Croatian Crisis Staff imposed the Croatian dinar "on the territory of the Kiseljak municipality as the currency of account" and ordered that "all commercial service companies [were] obliged to display the prices of products and services in Croatian dinars".

• 18 June 1992: Bosnian Territorial Defence (TO) in Novi Travnik received an ultimatum from Croatian Defence Council (HVO) which included demands to abolish existing Bosnia and Herzegovina institutions, establish the authority of the Croatian Community of Herzeg-Bosnia and pledge allegiance to it, subordinate the Territorial Defense to the HVO and expel Muslim refugees, all within 24 hours.[31]

• 19 June 1992: Croats attacked and damaged the headquarters of the Bosnian Territorial Defence, elementary school and the Post Office.

• June 1992: Bosniaks in the lower part of Novi Travnik were given ultimatums by Croat soldiers to leave within 24 hours. Bosniaks were subjected o killings, rape and other mistreatment.[32]

• 15–20 June 1992: Military troops from Croatia, called Garavi and Frankopani started to arrive in Gornji Vakuf, a town of strategic importance at a crossroads en route to Central Bosnia] Garavi unit numbered between 60 and 65 members.[33]

• 20 June 1992: Croat forces opened fire from the lower part of Gornji Vakuf on the part of the town inhabited by Bosnian Muslims. In the meantime, the Garavi unit set up a check-point and started arresting people.[34]

• 5 September 1992: Presidency of the Croatian Democratic Union (HDZ) in Travnik stated that the Croats in the municipality refused unitary State of Bosnia and Herzegovina and accepted only the HVO government.

• 19–26 October 1992: The conflict between Croatian Defence Council (HVO) and Bosnian Army (ARBiH) broke out again in Novi Travnik when the HVO attacked a Bosnian Army unit in the fire brigade building. It is assumed that the cause of the conflict was a demand by the HVO to be allowed to take over the Bratstvo ammunition factory which the Bosnian Army refused.

• 20 October 1992: Early in the morning the HVO attacked the Ahmići barricade. The houses were set on fire, the minaret of the mosque was hit and a 16-year-old boy was killed. The attack lasted all morning until the people manning the barricade ran out of ammunition and the checkpoint was then removed.

• 23 October 1992: Croat forces attacked Bosnian Muslims in Prozor town and started ethnic cleansing which included different form of violence.

• 24 October 1992: Croat forces attacked Paljike, a predominantly Bosniak village approximately one kilometer south of Prozor town, deliberately destroyed houses and property, killed some of the villagers, and the next day transferred the others to the Ripci primary school where Bosnian Muslims from Prozor were detained.

• 24 October 1992: On the evening, an area HVO commander reported that Prozor town was "ethnically pure" and "the Muslim population having been detained or having fled".

• 24–25 October 1992: Shortly after Croat forces attacked Bosnian Muslims in neighbouring Prozor municipality, the HVO and Bosnian Army engaged in fighting in Gornji Vakuf town, and the HVO seized control of several factories and the Ministry of Interior building.

• 26 October 1992: Bruno Stojić, Milivoj Petković, Janko Bobetko and others were informed that the Croat forces had taken control of Prozor on 25 October, with many casualties on the Muslim side.

etc

My point is this: Croats had better diplomacy than Serbs. But they had the same goals all the time. So, it's not widely known that ARBiH and HVO fought side by side throughout much of 1992 against the VRS, it's "known" maybe in Croatia, but on the courts, the facts say something else. Alan.Ford.Jn (talk) 20:48, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes, that's largely true. Croatia's ultimate goals were to 1) gain control of its rebel Serb territories (possibly also ethnically cleansing those territories),2) annex territories of Bosnia and Herzegovina populated by the majority of Croats (possibly also with ethnic cleansing to increase the size of those territories).

Croatia largely managed to achieve its wartime goals. 1) it gained control of its rebel Serb territories, and shrewdly manged to induce the Serbs to leave without having to actually cleanse them (a PR victory). 2) Croatia did not manage to annex parts of Bosnia, but Bosnian Croats (who enjoyed support from Croatia itself) did perform ethnic cleansing of ethnic Bosniaks (Muslims) during the Croat-Bosniak War (a part of the Bosnian War).

(The extent of the cleansing of course pales completely in comparison to brutal Serbian ethnic cleansing campaigns in eastern Bosnia, e.g. Srebrenica.)

Of course in order to achieve his first goal (the retaking of rebel Serb territories in Croatia), Croatian president Tuđman received NATO support. America finally sided against Serbs because of the continuous refusal of the Bosnian Serb government to negotiate peace. Naturally, Tuđman had to give-up on his plan to annex parts of Bosnia and Herzegovina in order to receive NATO support (carrot-and-stick, had he refused he would've also likely faced sanctions and an ICTY indictment).

What have we learned? 1. One annoys the Yanks at his own peril. 2. Croats should not be thanking "god" for their victory, but President Clinton. :) --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 13:41, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

I think we're getting a bit off base here. No one is disputing that Croatia wanted to annex Herzeg-Bosnia or that they carried out ethnic cleansing in the areas they held. The particular question at hand (currently at least) is that of the Bosniak and Bosnian Croat forces initially working together against the VRS and JNA in 1992, notabably in places like Mostar, Jajce and Posavina. Alan disputes this. And for the record Alan, this Croat biased thing to anyone who dares disagree with your dogmatic nationalism is getting a bit tiresome and is clearly projection. I'm not from Croatia, I think you have confused my general interest in 20th century military history with the same kind of agenda and POV that you continuously seem to produce --Nirvana77 (talk) 15:04, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

I seem to remember reading about a few joint defensive actions against Serbian/JNA forces in 1992, but I cannot be sure myself. What sources can we find to show that they did cooperate? By the rules of logical debate, and especially in light of the later Croat-Bosniak War, the burden of evidence is on you Nirvana :). (I hope I'm not missing some source you presented earlier.)

I must say though, that the early cooperation cannot be more than a relatively insignificant and brief 1992 episode regardless of its veracity. I do not see the significance in a discussion on the lead.

Alan, your sources do show that there was conflict in general before the Washington Agreement (i.e. the Croat-Bosniak War), but we all agree on that - they are not proof negative with regard to early cooperation. That said, by definition one does not need proof negative until proof positive is provided. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 16:44, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

As I stated earlier this was covered in the book Yugoslavia: Death of a Nation by Allan Little and Laura Silber, admittedly it was years ago I read it and I don't have it at my disposal right now, although I will see if I can get a hold of a copy in the week. I could refer you to litterature like War and genocide: organized killing in modern society by Martin Shaw (p.191), The Muslim-Croat civil war in Central Bosnia: a military history by Charles R. Shrader (p. 13, xv), NATO and former Yugoslavia by Joyce P. Kaufman (p.99), Memory and power in post-war Europe by Jan-Werner Müller (p.143) and so on. Or a U.S congressional report on Bosnia by European Affairs Specialist Steven Woehrel (p.5). I'm surprised this would be a issue since I feel I have come across this plenty of times before. --Nirvana77 (talk) 18:42, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

I myself am just not sure, and am willing to take your word on it. That does not matter though since Alan here has turned it into an issue, and the only way to proceed is to - check the sources. To be frank I'm 99% sure you're right, but again that is just my opinion. :)

The question again is why are we even talking about this: who the **** cares? The intro does not really need the info anyway. Its a detail - they fought a war very soon afterward. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 19:13, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

The "controversial" line was "It was predominantly a territorial conflict, initially between the Bosniaks and the Bosnian Croats on one side and the Bosnian Serbs on the other, although these factions changed objectives and allegiances several times at various stages of the war." I find it useful to at least try to give an overview of the alligencies. It's not the most vital info, but still useful. Should we remove it because Alan dosen't like it? The only reason we are talking about this is because Alan turned something I see as a basic fact into a issue for reasons I have hard time imagining being related to a NPOV. Note that he also takes an issue with this being a territorial conflict as he have stated previously. --Nirvana77 (talk) 20:06, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

The most recent version of that text was actually: "It was predominantly a territorial conflict, initially between the Army of the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina and Bosnian Croat forces on one side and Bosnian Serb forces on the other, although these factions changed objectives and allegiances several times at various stages of the war". I'm keen that we use the word "forces" so as to not to suggest that every single Bosniak, Croat and Serb was involved! 22:04, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

The war was, to all intents and purposes, three-sided up until 1992-94, and then two sided 1994-95. While I am sure now that the Bosniaks and Croats fought together against the initial Serb advance, I would also say that sentence does not accurately portray the war. Bosniaks and Croats were not allies up until the Washington agreement, their initial cooperation, while true, amounted to a rather insignificant initial truce-out-of-necessity. I would say:

"The war was a three-sided conflict between three main ethnic groups in Bosnia and Herzegovina, Bosniaks, Croats, and Serbs. The Bosniak and Croat factions were, however, in agreement against the Serbs during an initial brief period, resumed hostilities in the Croat-Bosniak War, and then signed a formal alliance and union with the Washington Agreement in 1994, which lasted up until the end of the War in '95. Both sides, especially the Bosniaks, were in continuous conflict with the Serbian faction throughout the War, although Croats did arrive at truces with Serbs at times, as both sides engaged the Bosniaks. Bosniaks, on the other hand, did not at any time arrive at an agreement or truce with the Serbian faction."

--DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 21:46, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

First, there were no Bosniak faction. There was Bosnian goverenment side, the only legal side on the territory of Bosnia and Herzegovina. Of course, Serbia and Croatia had their regular armies in Bosnia, but those were illegal there. Let's take a quick look here: [35]

(a) conflict between Bosnia and Herzegovina and Croatia

Prosecutor v. Rajic, Case No. IT-95-12

[B]etween 5000 to 7000 members of the Croatian Army, as well as some members of the Croatian Armed Forces (‘HOS’), were present in the territory of Bosnia and were involved, both directly and through their relations with Croatian Community of Herceg-Bosna (‘HB’) and the Croatian Defence Council (‘HVO’), in clashes with Bosnian Government forces in central and southern Bosnia.� [T]he Bosnian Croats can, for the purposes of these proceedings, be regarded as agents of Croatia in respect of discrete acts which are alleged to be violations of the grave breaches provisions of the Geneva Conventions.� It appears that Croatia, in addition to assisting the Bosnian Croats . . . inserted its own armed forces into the conflict on the territory of Bosnia and exercised a high degree of control over both the military and political institutions of the Bosnian Croats.”

Alan.Ford.Jn (talk) 23:59, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm losing track of what you're arguing here. I don't think anyone is saying that the Croatian army wasn't involved. Cordless Larry (talk) 00:19, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Would you like us to help you and pretend we're Croat nationalists, Alan?

WP:NOTFORUM applies. Your... contributions here are counterproductive.

@"Bosniak faction". We are all aware that the only warring faction with any semblance of legality was the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina (RBiH). However, we also all know that with the other two major ethnic groups universally seceding from its authority in the form of the "Republic of Srpska" and the "Croatian Republic of Herzeg-Bosnia", the RBiH (along with its arguably legal government) represented almost exclusively members of the Bosniak ("Muslim by Nationality") ethnic group. We shall not be pretending it was otherwise, I should think.

Its high time we put a stop to the nonsense. This was not a war between Croatia, the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina, and Serbia. It was a three-sided civil war within Bosnia and Herzegovina with substantial military aid being granted by the parent states of two nationalities. I think you can squarely forget about any mystical dream of presenting any aspect of it as a "Croatia vs. Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina War". Quite a looong way from WP:NPOV... --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 00:53, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Whatever Alan's intentions, it is more accurate to talk about the Army of the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina rather than simply "Bosniaks". The army was multi-ethnic, at least at the start of the conflict. Please see this source, which might be worth citing in the article text since it discusses the changing composition of the factions and the role of Croatia. Cordless Larry (talk) 01:05, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

I am aware that there was considerable effort on the part of the government to present RBiH as a multiethnic state. I am aware that these efforts were successful to some extent, and greatly exaggerated by wartime propaganda. I am also aware that initially there was some truth to this. However to present RBiH (or the ARBiH) as a multiethnic entity would be highly misleading without a doubt. There is really no question that it represented the Bosniak ethnic group within the country. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 01:12, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

I'd be happy for the ARBiH to be described as "largely Bosniak", but to suggest that being a member of the ARBiH and being Bosniak were necessarily one and the same thing is inaccurate. There are reliable sources that establish that there were non-Bosniaks in the ARBiH, at least at the start of the war. Cordless Larry (talk) 01:22, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Exactly - only at the early start, before Croats formed their own "state", before the subsequent near-collapse of the RBiH, there were Croats and Serbs. However the ARBiH did represent the Bosniak ethnic group - not "largely", but "predominantly" or "almost exclusively". We should not here cultivate the dream of the "multiethnic RBiH". Its reduction in representation is unfortunate, but very very thorough. In other words, yes they were there at the (early) start, yes a few (fewer and fewer) remained afterward as token "pan-Bosnians", but that does by no means allow us to call the ARBiH "multiethnic" or anything of the sort when viewing the war as whole across four years. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 01:31, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm not asking that we say that the ARBiH was perfectly multi-ethnic. I'm just saying that we shouldn't say "Bosniak" rather than "Army of the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina" when we describe the factions. "...the predominantly Bosniak Army of the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina" would seem a good solution. Cordless Larry (talk) 08:53, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

As for Croatia's role - no question. Croatia sent arms, men, material, and money to the "Croatian Republic of Herzeg-Bosnia", which was controlled by the same party as Croatia (the HDZ, which is unfortunately still with us I must add :P). However, Alan's interesting agenda to present some aspect as the "Croatia-RBiH War" is quite obviously a POV "ploy". Mr. Alan Ford (comics)'s agenda is to depict Croats as the aggressors against the Bosniaks, diverting attention/sharing blame with the Serbs as much as possible. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 01:17, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

I suggest that we add the following text: "It was principally a territorial conflict, initially between the predominantly Bosniak Army of the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina and Bosnian Croat forces on one side and Bosnian Serb forces on the other, although these factions changed objectives and allegiances several times at various stages of the war". Cordless Larry (talk) 08:55, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

I agree with this part: "dominatly Bosniak Army of the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina" (not predominantly), but other parts are false. According to Direktor insulting comment: "Alan's interesting agenda to present some aspect as the "Croatia-RBiH War" is quite obviously a POV "ploy"" I will just repeat some international verdicts: Case No. IT-95-12, Dario Kordic Case, Blaskic-Cerkez case as well as Mucit et al. case. My question is: how come those cases support my claim not yours? Do you want to say that ICTY is POV "ploy"? Alan.Ford.Jn (talk) 18:16, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Alan, "dominantly" doesn't make sense in this context. "Predominantly" means "Mainly; for the most part", which is correct in this context. It is also supported by reliable sources such as this. Cordless Larry (talk) 19:19, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

I would support that. Perhaps followed by "the Serb and Croat political leadership agreed on a partition of Bosnia with the Karađorđevo and Graz agreements, resulting in the Croats forces turning on the Army of the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina and the Croat-Bosniak war". With that and that it later deals with the creation of the federation of BaH I think you would have given a useful overview of the allegiances during the war --Nirvana77 (talk) 10:28, 21 November 2010 (UTC).

OK, I've added the sentence that I suggested. I haven't yet added the material about the Karađorđevo and Graz agreements as Karađorđevo is already mentioned in the previous paragraph and I'm not sure where it is best placed. Cordless Larry (talk) 11:10, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

I've noticed that most of these sort of conflicts stem from over-simplification. This is the lead, but it can take two sentences of more in-depth coverage of such an important aspect of the war as alliances and hostilities. Again I would suggest something along the lines of:

"The war was a three-sided conflict between three main ethnic groups in Bosnia and Herzegovina, Bosniaks, Croats, and Serbs. The Bosniak and Croat factions were, however, in agreement against the Serbs during an initial brief period, resumed hostilities in the Croat-Bosniak War, and then signed a formal alliance and union with the Washington Agreement in 1994, which lasted up until the end of the War in '95. Both sides, especially the Bosniaks, were in continuous conflict with the Serbian faction throughout the War, although Croats did arrive at truces with Serbs at times, as both sides engaged the Bosniaks. Bosniaks, on the other hand, did not at any time arrive at an agreement or truce with the Serbian faction."

If necessary we can replace "Croats", "Serbs" and "Bosniaks" with the names of their respective statelets. However: the ARBiH is not a war faction - the RBiH is. We should not refer to the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina as the Army of the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina. We should just make it clear (as I did in the infobox), that the RBiH came to represent predominantly the Bosniak ethnic group.

(We're in basic agreement regarding the wording on the ethnic composition of the ARBiH. :) --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 11:15, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments. I'm slightly concerned, however, that if we describe it as "a three-sided conflict between three main ethnic groups in Bosnia and Herzegovina", we risk sliding towards the "inevitable civil war driven" by "ancient hatreds"-type explanation that has been discredited by scholars. Please see the argument made here regarding how the view of the conflict as a civil war between three ethnic groups dovetails with that of nationalist politicians and obscures the role of outside parties. Cordless Larry (talk) 11:39, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

LoL, that is some stretch of imagination there :). I did not describe the war as "civil" or "inevitable" nor do I think the "ancient hatreds" are something to "slide" to by desrbing the war as three-sided (which it was to all intents and purposes for the majority of its duration).

Frankly I don't know how to respond, I had no intention of taking the lead in that direction and if someone does - its discredited by scholars. :) --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 12:12, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I obviously didn't word that very well. My point is that we should avoid characterising the conflict as one between three ethnic groups, when it is clear that things were considerably more complicated. I wasn't trying to suggest that you were pushing the "ancient hatreds" explanation, but that describing it as a conflict between three groups, and not mentioning the role of external powers, we risk misrepresenting the conflict. Cordless Larry (talk) 12:16, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps your suggestion to use the names of the respective statelets instead of the ethnic groups is the answer here? Cordless Larry (talk) 12:18, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Hm I see, the disputed part is "ethnic groups". Well I wouldn't say it was a "lot" more complicated than that because, well - that's what it essentially was. :) Two of the three main ethnic groups formed their own states and seceded from the RBiH leaving it (de facto) representative of the remaining one. The Republic of Serbian Krajina and CR Herzeg-Bosnia were two quite violently "exclusive" clubs. As the war went on Bosniaks were treated horribly by the Croats and the Serbs, as you can imagine this created an extremely bitter and hostile atmosphere towards those two nationalities in the RBiH. Also the RBiH was essentially losing the war to the "nation-statelets" up until the Croats/NATO busted through up to the Serbian capital of Banja Luka with Operation Storm. Croats and Serbs were certainly little more than token forces by 1993. What are the figures on that, btw?

Anyway. I have no problem at all with using the names of the statelets, however cumbersome that might turn out, but it must be explained that two were exclusive nation-states in both proclamation and de facto, while the third was de facto "predominantly Bosniak". Within a few short months of the war the claim of Izetbegović to represent Serbs(!) and Croats was literally laughed at. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 12:32, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes, my problem is with suggesting that the belligerents were the ethnic groups themselves rather than armies or factions or whatever. Cordless Larry (talk) 15:09, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Right, of course, states/their armies - not the ethnic groups themselves. Believe me, I'm not in a hurry to promote the point of view that we are mindless ancient-hatred-spewing savages out to brutally massacre each other with salad forks... even though we just might be. :) --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 15:49, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

No need to be so nervous Direktor. According to Prosecutor v. Rajic, Case No. IT-95-12, it was a conflict between Bosnia and Croatia. According to Tadic case [36] it was a conflict between Bosnia and Serbia. Let me repeat the quote: "[T]he Bosnian Croats can, for the purposes of these proceedings, be regarded as agents of Croatia in respect of discrete acts which are alleged to be violations of the grave breaches provisions of the Geneva Conventions." So it was not a civil war between three ethnic groups it was well planed agression by Serbia and Croatia, according to those verdicts. Alan.Ford.Jn (talk) 18:02, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

One more thing to say. I don't like Direktor's and Nirvana's arguments "We are all aware", "We all know", "It is widely known". If I cite a verdict from ICTY as an argument, I expect you to cite some other verdict from ICTY as a counterargument.Alan.Ford.Jn (talk) 18:24, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Alan, can I check whether you are sure that the text from the ICTY that you are quoting is part of a verdict? It seems like it's an indictment to me. Cordless Larry (talk) 18:50, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

I am 100% sure I am quoting verdicts. Here is the page about verdict summaries [37]. And I was quoting Appeal Chambers or Trial Chamber when reaching the verdict. For example:

Blaskic, (Trial Chamber), March 3, 2000, para. 83-123: The Trial Chambers concluded that “[b]ased on Croatia’s direct intervention in BH [Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina]” there was “ample proof to characterise the conflict as international,”[38] Alan.Ford.Jn (talk) 18:58, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

I asked because Ivica Rajić, whose case you quoted from above, wasn't convicted until 2006 whereas the quote is from 1996. Cordless Larry (talk) 19:05, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Regarding the question about multi-ethnic Army, it's obvious Direktor is very nervous with my exposals and arguments. It was dominantly Bosniak Army yes, but not predominantly as he is trying to present. There is a book by Bernard-Herny Levy - Lily and the dust, where he explains it well.

Blaž Kraljević, Croat general in Bosnian Army, who was killed by Croatian regime because he accepted Bosnian Army command. It is very important fact here. Alan.Ford.Jn (talk) 19:02, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

User:Alan Ford. Should you continue to comment on myself rather than article content, I may have to report you for such belligerent comments and a deliberately provocative manner. I am not "nervous", merely amused :). Blaž Kraljević, of whom I do indeed know, was not a member of the ARBiH, but the commander of an extreme-right-wing Croat splinter-faction - the HOS. The HOS held that the Bosniaks were in fact Croats of Muslim faith and were thus their "natural allies" (in line with the views of the genocidal WWII Ustaše movement). Kraljević was strongly opposed by the government of the Croatian Republic of Herzeg-Bosnia.

I am rather surprised to find you promoting the likes of Kraljević, Alan. :)

Well, your comments look like Franjo Tudjman's propaganda from 90s. Blaz Kraljevic was a member of Bosnian Army's Headquarters. Tudjman's propaganda portrayed him just like you described. Acctually, they first killed him, then described him as an extreme-right-wing element. Do you know why? He didn't accept Croatian aggression on Bosnia. Do you think that a man who said this is extreme-right-wing element:

• We implore all citizens of Bosnia and Herzegovina, especially Croats and Bosniaks not to take into account any statements or agreements between Mate Boban and Radovan Karadžić (ie Graz agreement).
• Not one nor the other speak in the name of Croats and Bosniaks. They do not represent what the Croats and Bosniaks want.
• There will be no division of Bosnia and Herzegovina, we can and we will preserve Bosnia and Herzegovina for all of us; we won't leave our people on the grinder. Either we will all die or we will all be free. We are not ready for treason. Radovan Karadžić is the murderer of Croat and Bosniak people's and Mate Boban cannot and doesn't have the right to lead the Croats and Bosniaks of BH into ruin.
• Bosnia and Herzegovina is defended and will be defended by the HOS and TO Bosnia and Herzegovina (Territorial Defence Force of the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina). Bosnia and Herzegovina is in ruins, the people are displaced but the victory is ours. We invite all HVO units to come under our command. Under the command of the HOS and with the cooperation of the TO Bosnia and Herzegovina we will free Bosnia and Herzegovina for the benefit of all people's. We will throw the people with the dark pasts and suspicious present out of the defensive units of BH. We will send them home, but keep an eye on them, we are talking about our destiny. We have a chance, but just one.

Come on Direktor, you are smarter than this. Alan.Ford.Jn (talk) 23:37, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

But this is not just about Blaz Kraljevic. Presidency of Bosnia during the war was multi-ethnic all the time Presidency_of_Bosnia_and_Herzegovina#Presidency_of_the_early_Republic_of_Bosnia_and_Herzegovina. It consisted of two Croats, two Serbs, two Bosniaks and one representing others. Of course Croatian and Tudjman's propaganda was really strong. I will tell something Direktor likes to say: "We all know" who was Smiljko Sagolj, Dijana Culjak, Dubravko Merlic etc and other propagandists with their nationalistic reports. Alan.Ford.Jn (talk) 23:46, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Furthermore, I think its high time we deal with the ICTY. As was frequently pointed out in similar discussions, the ICTY, far from being the "word of god" or something, is in essence a primary source. In order to be considered a particular ICTY statement must be quoted in a reliable, scholarly, published secondary source (preferably by a history professional). Alan's OR is not something to particularly concern ourselves with. Alan, please find real sources to support your increasingly extravagant claims.

Finally I'd like to assure you fellas that this discussion will certainly be getting nowhere with a user who has arrived here in search of a debating opponent (likely because he has discovered ICTY verdicts on the net and feels he may use them to further a POV). Unless this topic returns to actual article changes we'll all likely find ourselves wasting whole afternoons here for no good reason. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 20:27, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Ha lol. I'm a victim of Tuđman's propaganda? :) What I won't here on this wiki... One minute I'm a communist, the next some French guys call me a Nazi, next a Balkans nationalist is calling me a HDZ supporter, etc. I simply must start keeping track of this, I'll try to incorporate this on my userpage somehow.

Friendly advice: If I were you, I would ask myself is it something with me, or with everyone else? Alan.Ford.Jn (talk) 23:54, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Ok so we have Blaž Kraljević on the agenda for our article-content-unrelated-utter-waste-of-time debate? Ok. Time for a bit of a lesson in Croatian politics and history, listen carefully now.
Blaž Kraljević was the leader of the Croatian Defence Forces (Hrvatske obrambene snage, HOS). The HOS was the military wing of the radical-right Croatian Party of Right (HSP), all HOS members were naturally HSP members. One of the more "famous" historical members of the Croatian Party of Right was also Ante Pavelić, the WWII (quote) "Croatian fuhrer", dictator of the Nazi-puppet Croatian state (the NDH). The NDH state was ruled by Ante-Pavelić's Ustaše movement. This movement, responsible for the genocide of (at least) several hundred thousand Serbs, Jews, and Roma, was a radical faction ("Frankovci") of this same party - the HSP.

During World War II, the military of this puppet Croatian state (which was ruled by a faction of the HSP party) was known as the Croatian Armed Forces (Hrvatske oružane snage, HOS), wich tells us something about how the HSP and Blaž Kraljević picked the (almost universally used) acronym for their new (1992) military wing - they were inspired by the Independent State of Croatia (NDH).

Also, the intergral part of the doctrine of Greater Croatia, then openly supported by the Croatian Party of Right (and of course its military wing), was and is the incorporation of ethnic Bosniaks into the Croatian nationality as "ethnic Croats of Muslim faith" (since there are far to few Croats in Bosnia and Herzegovina to advocate its complete annexation - Greater Croatia). This was, again, also the doctrine of the Ustaše-ruled Independent State of Croatia. Blaž Kraljević, was of course, supporting this idea and hoping for the assimilation of Bosniaks into Croatia. Tuđman just knew it was pipe-dream of a Nazi-period nostalgic and removed him since he was drawing off far too many Nazi-loving-nuts from Herzegovina into his ranks. The poor RBiH, of course, did its best to use him since it certainly had no luxury of picking allies. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 00:54, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

WOW, what a wise man you are. You said: Blaž Kraljević, was of course, supporting this idea and hoping for the assimilation of Bosniaks into Croatia. So, instead of being psychic, you should provide arguments for such claims. What I read is his proclamation, not your projections:

• We implore all citizens of Bosnia and Herzegovina, especially Croats and Bosniaks not to take into account any statements or agreements between Mate Boban and Radovan Karadžić (ie Graz agreement).
• Not one nor the other speak in the name of Croats and Bosniaks. They do not represent what the Croats and Bosniaks want.
• There will be no division of Bosnia and Herzegovina, we can and we will preserve Bosnia and Herzegovina for all of us; we won't leave our people on the grinder. Either we will all die or we will all be free. We are not ready for treason. Radovan Karadžić is the murderer of Croat and Bosniak people's and Mate Boban cannot and doesn't have the right to lead the Croats and Bosniaks of BH into ruin.
• Bosnia and Herzegovina is defended and will be defended by the HOS and TO Bosnia and Herzegovina (Territorial Defence Force of the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina). Bosnia and Herzegovina is in ruins, the people are displaced but the victory is ours. We invite all HVO units to come under our command. Under the command of the HOS and with the cooperation of the TO Bosnia and Herzegovina we will free Bosnia and Herzegovina for the benefit of all people's. We will throw the people with the dark pasts and suspicious present out of the defensive units of BH. We will send them home, but keep an eye on them, we are talking about our destiny. We have a chance, but just one.

Alan.Ford.Jn (talk) 23:48, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Basics

Friendly advice:

• User:Alan.Ford.Jn is likely the latest sockpuppet of that nationalist nuisance User:Historičar. He should be reported, quickly blocked, comments promptly removed/ignored, and if necessary this talkpage should be semi-protected while the discussion lasts. Above all: do NOT respond to his posts.
• We must at all costs avoid turning this into a Balkans ethnic... "debate" and keep it simple or esle we'll be here 'till Christmas - 2011.

--DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 16:47, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

I am sorry for your comment. I am not a sockpuppet. But, I am aware that my comments did hurt your feeling, because I am talking about facts, and your agenda is to "protect" Croatian position. Alan.Ford.Jn (talk) 20:48, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Ok Alan, I get it. What you must understand is that I am most certainly NOT here to promote a Croatian POV. If you knew me and my edits you would not've stated anything of the sort. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 13:14, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

No wait, I remember - if I recall they did defend against the Serbs initially, but having beaten them off they turned on each other - or to be more precise, the Croats attacked. Now I'm 100& sure. Alan, yur wrong :) --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 19:16, 20 November 2010 (UTC)